9. soil degradation - european environment agency · 199 soil erosion affects large areas of europe...

Europe’s environment: the third assessment198

In many areas of Europe, soil is being irreversiblylost and degraded as a result of increasing andoften conflicting demands from nearly all economicsectors. Pressures result from the concentration ofpopulation and activities in localised areas,economic activities and changes in climate andland use. Cultivation systems are among the mostimportant influences on the quality of soils inagricultural areas. Consumer behaviour and theindustrial sector are contributing to the increase inthe number of potential sources of contaminationsuch as municipal waste disposal, energyproduction and transport, mainly in urban areas.Tourism is a further cause of soil degradationespecially along the coasts of the Mediterranean.Many of the problems stem from past activities andpoor management practices in eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia.

The combined action of these activities affectsquality and limits many soil functions includingthe capacity to remove contaminants from theenvironment by filtration and adsorption. Thiscapacity and the resilience of soil mean thatdamage is not perceived until it is far advanced.This partly explains the low priority given to soilprotection in Europe until recently. Moreover, sincesoil is a limited and non-renewable resource, whenit is damaged, unlike air and water, it is not easilyrecoverable.

Major problems in Europe are irreversible lossesdue to soil sealing and erosion, continuingcontamination from local and diffuse sources,acidification, salinisation and compaction.

The geographical distribution of soil degradationdepends on several factors. Soil problems areinfluenced by the diversity, distribution andspecific vulnerability of soils across Europe. Theyalso depend on geology, topography and climateand on the distribution of driving forces. Betterintegration of soil protection into sectoral policiesand better harmonisation of information acrossEurope are needed to move to more sustainable useof soil resources and promotion of sustainablemodels of its use.

9.1. Introduction

Soil has many ecological and socio-economicfunctions including the capacity to removecontaminants from the environment byfiltration and adsorption. This capacity and

9. Soil degradation

soil resilience mean that damage to soil isoften not perceived until it is far advanced.Following the precautionary principle andtaking account of the slow rate of soilformation, soil can be considered as alimited and non-renewable resource on a50–100 year timescale.

The quality of Europe’s soils is a result ofnatural factors, such as climate, the materialout of which the soil was formed, vegetation,biota and topography, and human activities.As a consequence, there is a wide diversity ofsoil types, and soil degradation differsmarkedly across Europe.

9.1.1. Policy challengesIn many areas of Europe, soil is beingdegraded as a result of pressures comingfrom nearly all economic sectors. Among themost important influences on the quality ofsoil are the cultivation systems used inagriculture. Loss of organic matter, soilbiodiversity and consequently soil fertility areoften driven by unsustainable practices suchas deep ploughing on fragile soils andcultivation of erosion-facilitating crops suchas maize, and the continuous use of heavymachinery destroys soil structure throughcompaction (German Advisory Council onGlobal Change, 1994; EEA, 1999). Inaddition, overgrazing and the intensificationof agriculture, some of which is linked in theEuropean Union (EU) to theimplementation of the common agriculturalpolicy, may accelerate loss of soil througherosion.

In addition to agriculture, consumerbehaviour is contributing to increases ofsources of soil pollution: municipal waste,energy consumption, transport andemissions of exhaust gases (EEA, 2002a).The major impact of these is a reduction insoil buffering capacity, that is the capacity ofsoil to adsorb contaminants. The extent ofthis reduction is difficult to measurealthough there are signs that such capacity isnear to exhaustion in many areas in Europe.

Many of these degradation processes have adirect impact on the global carbon cycle,particularly through the decrease in soilorganic matter and the release of carbondioxide to the atmosphere.

kiev_eea_version.pmd 03-04-2003, 12:24 PM198

199

Soil erosion affects large areas of Europe —about 17 % of the total land area in Europeis affected to some degree, with around 27million ha in the EU (Oldeman et al., 1991).Climatic conditions make the Mediterraneanregion one of the areas most severelyaffected. Changes in land use, such asabandonment of marginal land with very lowvegetation cover and increases in thefrequency and extension of forest fires, havehad a strong impact on soil resources sincehistorical times. In the most extreme cases,soil erosion, coupled with other forms ofland degradation, has led to desertificationin some areas of the Mediterranean andeastern Europe (see Box 9.1). Soil erosion isalso an increasing concern in northern

Europe, although to a lesser degree (EEA-UNEP, 2000; EEA, 2002a, b).

Despite the fact that a wide range of activitiesuse and contribute to the depletion of soilresources, soil protection has not generallybeen the subject of specific policy objectivesand targets, unlike water and air. Soilprotection has rather been addressedindirectly through measures aimed at theprotection of air and water or developedwithin sectoral policies. An important recentadvance has been the inclusion of plans for athematic strategy on soil protection in thesixth environment action programme (6EAP)in 2001 and the adoption of a Commissioncommunication on soil protection, endorsed

Box 9.1. Implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification

The UN Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD) was adopted in 1994 and came into forcein 1997. Its provisions include a reportingobligation and the preparation of national,subregional or regional action programmes for itsimplementation. As of December 2002, 185countries worldwide had ratified the convention.

The European Community and all but four countriesin the area covered by this report have ratified theconvention, although not all signatory Parties areaffected by desertification. The area comprisesthree regional annexes of the convention: Asia(Annex II), northern Mediterranean (Annex IV) andcentral and eastern Europe (Annex V). Since itsentry into force there has been some progress inimplementing the convention in these regions, butit is still too early to register substantial progressand improvement in the state of environment.

Northern MediterraneanIn the northern Mediterranean, of ten affectedcountries, eight report regularly on progress inimplementation; six are at different stages ofpreparing national action programmes and three(Portugal, Italy and Greece) are currentlyimplementing them. Preparation of a subregionalaction programme is under way and a joint reporthas been presented. The development of theseprogrammes and cooperation and exchange ofinformation is supported by a number of projects.Interregional cooperation with northern Africancountries has started.

In general, countries report difficulties inestablishing good cooperation and communicationamong stakeholders, with some exceptions. Thiscould be crucial since desertification is a cross-cutting issue and combating it requires closeintegration of several policy sectors. Combatingdesertification often has a low priority so there issome difficulty in mobilising national funds. Eventhe three adopted national action programmeshave no legal frameworks, and no independentbudgets are assigned to the implementation of theconvention.

Central and eastern EuropeIn central and eastern Europe, nine countries havesubmitted national reports, three have adoptednational action programmes (Armenia, the Republicof Moldova and Romania) and three have startedpreparing them (Bulgaria, Georgia and Hungary).

A common feature of the region is that mostcountries are only slightly affected by actualdesertification, although large-scale landdegradation is often reported. Countries use theconvention as a tool for framing and fosteringactivities to combat land degradation.

In general, no specific budgets are allocated tocombat desertification and measures aredeveloped within sectoral policies. Limitedresources are available at the national level toimplement actions, as the countries of the regionhave economies in transition and most urgent basicneeds get higher priority. However, some pilotprojects are being implemented and trans-nationalcooperation is under way.

Caucasus and central AsiaThe five Caucasus and central Asian countries haveall adopted national action programmes and allreport regularly to the convention.

Strategies to combat desertification are integratedwithin the national strategies for sustainabledevelopment. Strong links have been establishedwith strategies to combat poverty and supportsocio-economic development.

Most of these countries are largely dry land (80 %of Uzbekistan, 90 % of Turkmenistan) and landdegradation, drought and desertification occur ona large scale with dramatic effects on livelihood(e.g. the Aral Sea disaster). Combatingdesertification therefore has a high priority.However, lack of funds hinders the implementationof specific measures. Nevertheless, nationalinstitutional infrastructures have been established,monitoring and assessment activities have been setup and a number of pilot projects are beingdeveloped. Regional cooperation is well under waythrough the development of transboundaryprojects such as those being implemented in theAral Sea basin and Caspian Sea.

Sources: UNCCD, 2002a; 2002b

Soil degradation



by the European Council in 2002. Thecommunication calls for the development of aEuropean soil monitoring system capable ofproviding reliable, comparable and regularinformation on soil conditions in Europe(European Commission, 2002). Mostinternational programmes also emphasise theneed to improve soil monitoring in Europe(EEA-UNEP, 2000). However, the key toprogress towards sustainable use of soilresources remains better integration of soilprotection into sectoral, local and regionalpolicies.

9.1.2. A regional overviewThe occurrence and distribution of soilproblems are influenced by the diversity,distribution and specific vulnerability of soilsacross Europe, coupled with physical aspectssuch as geology, relief and climate. A furtherfactor is the distribution of driving forcesacross the continent (EEA-UNEP, 2000).

Western EuropeSoil contamination remains a problem inwestern Europe (WE) despite severalnational and international initiatives thathave been set up during the past 10 years toreduce air emissions and control, forexample, the application of sewage sludgeand the use of landfill for waste disposal. WEis highly urbanised (built-up areas occupy15 % of its territory) and competition for thelimited land available results in the loss ordegradation of soil resources and inparticular the sealing of the soil surface atunsustainable rates, for example throughurban development and the construction oftransport infrastructures. Soil erosion greatlyaffects Mediterranean countries, where inthe most extreme cases (arid and sub-humidclimate) it leads to desertification. Inaddition, frequently repeated forest firescontribute to the desertification of marginallands. Unsustainable irrigation systemscontribute significantly to the salinisationand erosion of cultivated lands.

Central and eastern EuropeSoil degradation problems in the central andeastern European (CEE) countries aresimilar to those in WE, although there is lesssoil sealing. Most of the problems areinherited from the time of the former USSR,when environmental issues were of minorconcern. Erosion is the most widespreadform of soil degradation, linked toagricultural mismanagement anddeforestation (van Lynden, 2000). Pastagricultural policies that focused onincreasing productivity led to incorrect use

of mineral fertilisers, pesticides and heavymachinery. The combined effects of theseresulted in increased rates of soil loss byerosion, pollution of groundwater andreduction of soil fertility. Increasedawareness of environmental issues, theobligation to implement EU legislation uponaccession and declining economies arereducing the pressures from agriculture(decreases in fertiliser and pesticideconsumption).

Soil contamination is, to a great extent, aresult of the legacy of inefficienttechnologies and uncontrolled emissions.Problem areas include some 3 000 formermilitary sites, abandoned industrial facilitiesand storage sites which may still be releasingpollutants to the environment (DANCEE,2000). One of the major impacts isgroundwater contamination and relatedhealth problems. Major concerns are thelong time needed to regeneratecontaminated soil and the considerableinvestment required for remedial measures.

Conflicts in the Balkans have had impacts,not only in the countries directly involved,but also in neighbouring areas as aconsequence of the migration of refugeesand increased demand for basic resources(food and firewood). In Bosnia-Herzegovinait has been estimated that the war damagedsoil resources in an area of about 6 000 hathrough deforestation, erosion, compaction,waste disposal and damage to industrialfacilities (REC, 2001). A specific post-conflictsituation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovoconcerns land mines and unexplodedordinances. It is estimated that in Bosnia-Herzegovina there are between 3 and 6million land mines disseminated in morethan 16 000 minefields and that 27 % of thetotal arable land is mined. Until land minesare cleared, opportunities for reconstructionand agriculture work will be severely limited.

Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and central AsiaOver the past 50 years, the priority given toincreasing the productivity of agriculture,combined with climatic factors, has resultedin soil and water pollution from the overuseof pesticides and fertilisers. Large areas haveexperienced salinisation as a consequence ofunsustainable irrigation schemes andcultivation practices (the best-known case isthe environmental disaster of the drying-upof the Aral Sea — see Section 9.5., Box 9.2.).

The most extreme forms of degradation haveresulted in the desertification of large areas.


201

In Kazakhstan an estimated 60 % of theterritory is at risk of desertification (UNECE,2000a). The process is accelerated by thelarge-scale collective farms and theabandonment of marginal land, whichcannot naturally recover because of theharsh climate.

During the past decade, the relatively highextent of soil degradation has beenincreasing in Azerbaijan. In 2000, between3.7 and 8.6 million hectars of land weredegraded through erosion and 30 000hectars were degraded through soilcontamination by a number of substances,including oil products (14 000 ha).

In central Asia, a wide transboundary region— which includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan andis characterised by an arid and semi-aridclimate — presents acute problems ofdesertification. For example, inTurkmenistan, livestock breeding is the mostprofitable and at the same time the leastlabour-intensive branch of the economy.About 90 % of the territory is covered by adesert landscape and serves as year-roundpasture for sheep and camels. As a result,vast areas of pasture are degraded and havelow productivity. Out of 39.5 million hectaresof pasture, 70 % is degraded, 40 % receivespoor water supply and 5 % has beentransformed into bare moving sand,according to the report on theimplementation of the UN Convention toCombat Desertification (UNCCD) inTurkmenistan (summarised in UNCCD,2002c).

Heavy-metal contamination is commonaround major industrial areas (van Lynden,2000). The problem is especially acute in themining and metallurgical complexes ofKazhakstan (Rekacewicz et al., 2000) and inthe Caspian area, where oil spills are also amajor source of contamination (UNDP andGEF, 1998). Existing and planned oil and gaspipelines in the area are leading, or areexpected to lead, to pressures on soil and,among other impacts, to the fragmentationof habitats. Contamination with radioactivityis also important as a result of nuclearweapons tests, improper radioactive wastedisposal and the Chernobyl accident (UNEP,1998 — see also Chapter 10).

The recent economic decline has reducedpressures on the soil and resulted in adecrease in fertiliser, pesticide and waterconsumption, and a general slowing of

Soil sealing continues to increaseespecially in western Europe where

the area of built-up land is increasingmore rapidly than the population. This isa result of the steady increase in thenumber of households and averageresidential space per capita since 1980.

industrial activity (UNEP, 2002). However,pressures on the soil are increasing at thelocal level mainly in urban areas and aroundrural settlements.

9.2. Soil sealing

Soil sealing is the covering of the soil surfacewith an impervious material or the changingof its nature so that the soil becomesimpermeable. The greatest impacts are inurban and metropolitan areas where largeportions of the land are covered withconstructions. The development of transportinfrastructures is another important cause.Built-up land is lost to other uses such asagriculture and forestry, and the ecologicalfunctions of soil, such as storage of carbonand habitat for unique biota, are limited orimpeded. Soil sealing can also result in thefragmentation of habitats and disruption ofmigration corridors for wildlife species.

Soil sealing can have a major impact onwater flows. Runoff water from housing andtraffic areas is normally unfiltered and maybe contaminated with harmful chemicals.Surface runoff can increase significantly inamount and velocity, causing problems oflocal flood control. Although floods arenatural phenomena, they may be intensifiedby human alteration, as has been observed inEurope in recent years (PIK, 2000). Theincreasing demand for land for newresidential areas or industrial facilities hasresulted in development in areas at high riskof flooding (UNECE, 2000b).

Over the past 20 years, built-up areas havebeen steadily increasing all over Europe(Figure 9.1). Although geographicalcoverage is not complete and estimationmethods may vary slightly from country tocountry, socio-economic factors appear to bethe main driving forces for this growth. Themost dramatic changes have been in WE,where the area of built-up land is increasingmore rapidly than the population (EEA,2002a). This is the result of the steady

Soil degradation



4

6

8

9

% of land area

198

019

8519

9520

0019

90

EU

AC-13

EECCA

0

7

5

increase in the number of households andaverage residential space per capita since1980, a trend that has accelerated since 1990(EEA, 2001). At the same time, travellingdistances to services increased with travellingmainly by private transport (EEA, 2000). As aconsequence, the demand for new buildingsand better transport infrastructurescontinues to rise. In addition, increasingprosperity has led to a higher demand forsecond homes, inevitably resulting in moresoil sealing.

The countries with the highest share of built-up area (between 16 % and 20 % of totalland area) are Belgium, Denmark and theNetherlands. In most cases, built-up areashave increased at expense of agriculturalland, and to a lesser extent forests (EEA,1999; 2002a) The effects of these changescan be observed, for example, in Spain,where highly productive agricultural land inthe floodplains has been transformed intoresidential areas, transferring agriculturalactivities to less productive land. At the sametime, intensive cultivation has beenintroduced to maintain productivity (MMA etal., 2002). In the Mediterranean countries,urbanisation has been growing in the coastalzones of southern France, Italy, southernSpain and the Mediterranean islands, wheretourism is the main driving force (EEA-UNEP, 2000; see also Chapter 2.7).

Figure 9.1. Built-up areas in Europe as percent of total land

Notes: EU: data for Austria,Belgium, Denmark, France,

Germany, Luxembourg,Netherlands and Spain.

Accession countries: data forCzech Republic, Latvia,

Lithuania, Poland, Romaniaand Slovakia. EECCA: data

for Armenia, Azerbaijan,Belarus, Georgia, Republic

of Moldova, Tajikistan,Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Sources: For EU andaccession countries: Eurostat

New Cronos (2001); forEECCA countries: EEA 2002

questionnaire

The extent of built-up area in the CEEcountries was more or less constant duringthe late 1970s and the first half of the 1980s.Political and economic changes during thelate 1980s resulted in the development ofnew infrastructures, the migration of ruralpopulations to the cities and thedevelopment of new settlements (BalticEnvironmental Forum, 2001). Slovakia andthe Czech Republic have the highestpercentage of built-up area (about 8 % ofthe total land area). Pressure is alsoincreasing in some coastal zones, forexample along the German, Latvian andRussian coasts on the Baltic Sea (CoalitionClean Baltic, 2002).

Soil sealing is still a minor problem ineastern Europe, the Caucasus and centralAsia (EECCA) compared to other forms ofsoil degradation, such as erosion, salinisationand contamination. However, pressure isincreasing around industrial and urbansettlements and in tourist areas along thecoasts of the Black Sea.

In the EU, policy measures explicitly relatedto land-use issues, such as spatial planning,have generally been the responsibilities ofMember States, following the application ofthe principle of subsidiarity. Althoughmentioned in the fifth and sixthenvironment action programmes, spatialplanning has only recently been specificallyaddressed, within the European spatialdevelopment perspective (1999) and theforthcoming European urban strategy.Although the communication on soilprotection (2002) does not address the issueof spatial planning, it recognises sealing as athreat to soil.

The inclusion of environmental concernsand objectives in spatial planning is nowwidely recognised as a major tool forreducing the effects of uncontrolled urbanexpansion. This has led, for example, to theadoption of measures such as the reuse ofunderdeveloped or derelict urban areas(brownfields) and the adoption of specifictargets in some countries (includingDenmark, Germany and the UnitedKingdom) (EEA-UNEP, 2000). In 2003 theCommission will present a communicationon ‘Planning and environment: theterritorial dimension’. This will address theneed for rational land-use planning toenable the sustainable management of soilresources, limiting the sealing of greenfieldsand promoting the reuse of brownfields.


203

Estonia*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

% of total land area

Tajikistan

Austria

Kyrgyzstan

Belarus

Kazakhstan

Lithuania*

Russian Federation

Latvia*

Spain

Cyprus

Albania

Georgia

Czech Republic*

Poland

Ukraine

Hungary*

Armenia

Republic of Moldova

Italy*

Slovak Republic

Bulgaria

Greece*

Azerbaijan

Non-agricultural area affectedAgricultural area

Source: EU: OECD-Eurostat(1997) and various nationalsources, EEA; easternEurope and EECCA: nationalreports and EEA 2002questionnaire

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Soil loss (tonnes/ha/year) 1996–2000

1990–1995

Spain

Alban

ia

Fran

ce

Roman

ia

Bulgar

ia

Belaru

s

Switz

erlan

d

Austri

a

Cypru

s

Slova

k rep

ublic

Kazak

hsta

n

FYR M

aced

onia

Armen

ia

Figure 9.3.Annual soil loss through erosion in agriculturalland in selected countries

Unsustainable agriculturalpractices, coupled with adverse

natural and other factors, are increasingthe loss of soil through erosion, some ofwhich may be irreversible. About 17 % ofthe total land area in Europe is affectedto some degree.

Soil degradation

Figure 9.2.Area affected by erosion

Notes: Asterisks indicate that data for agricultural area are not available. Ukraine: dataincludes area at risk of erosion. Data refer to 1990–99, except for Austria, Greece, Hungary,Italy, Poland, Slovak Republic and Spain where the data cover 1990–95.

Sources: EU: OECD-Eurostat (1997); eastern Europe: SOVEUR assessment (FAO and ISRIC,2000) and EEA 2002 questionnaire; EECCA: EEA 2002 questionnaire; Azerbaijan(communication by EEA national contact point). Ukraine: State of the environment report (2002)

9.3. Soil erosion

Soil erosion is a natural process linked toother processes such as seashoresedimentation. However, soil erosion hasbeen exacerbated by human activities, leadingto one of the major and most widespreadforms of land degradation. About 17 % of thetotal land area in Europe is affected to somedegree (Oldeman et al., 1991; EEA, 2002b).Major causes are unsustainable agriculturalpractices, large-scale farming and overgrazingin WE and CEE, and poor water andirrigation management especially in EECCA(UNECE, 2001). In the Caucasus, the energycrisis and fuel shortages have resulted in anincrease in woodcutting to obtain firewoodfor heating since the late 1980s, which hasbeen one of the main drivers of soil erosion inthis area (UNEP, 2002). In the past few years,the increase in frequency and extent of forestfires in the Mediterranean region has also hada significant impact on soil erosion. Tourismand transport may be important driving forcesin localised areas (EEA, 2002b).

Soil erosion in Europe is due mainly to water(about 92 % of the total affected area) andless to wind. Wind erosion is localized insome parts of western Europe and CEE(EEA, 2002b). There is an increasingawareness that erosion, which is primarilyresponsible for the severe degradationoccurring in topographically complexlandscapes, is caused not only by wind andwater but also by tillage, mainly due to theuse of heavy powerful tillage machinery.

As the topsoil is eroded and washed away, thefertility and productivity of the remainingsoil is reduced. Farmers have to apply morefertilisers to compensate for yield losses.Erosion is most serious in central Europe,the Caucasus and the Mediterranean region,where 50–70 % of agricultural land is atmoderate to high risk of erosion (UNECE,2001). Figure 9.2. and Figure 9.3 illustraterespectively the areas affected and thecurrent rates of erosion in the variouscountries. The data show that the problem is



mainly localised in agricultural areas. Oliveplantations and vineyards, when intensivelyploughed, are among the crops moresusceptible to erosion because a highpercentage of the soil surface remainsuncovered by vegetation all the year round.Olive groves with minimum or no tillage arevery effective agricultural systems inpreventing erosion and desertification in theMediterranean.

Since the rate of soil formation is so slow, anysoil loss of more than 1 tonne/ha/year canbe considered as irreversible within a timespan of 50–100 years (EEA, 1999). Currentrates of erosion in the Mediterraneancountries, if confirmed, would mean thatirreversible processes of soil degradation(and desertification in the most extremecases) are already occurring in that region.In some areas, the situation is so extremethat there is no more soil left to erode.

Soil erosion has a major economic impact.Yearly economic losses in agricultural areas inEurope are estimated at around EUR 53/ha,while the costs of off-site effects on thesurrounding civil public infrastructures, suchas destruction of roads and siltation of dams,reach EUR 32/ha (García-Torres et al., 2001).In Armenia, for example, the costs of thedamage from soil erosion in the past 20 yearsamounted to 7.5 % of national grossagricultural product (UNECE, 2000c).

The effects of soil erosion are expected toget worse, since climate change is expectedto influence the characteristics of rainfall inways which might increase soil erosion incentral Europe (Sauerborn et al., 1999).

Policies to combat soil erosion comprise awide range of actions: adoption ofsustainable farming practices (includingminimum tillage systems, contouring,terracing or strip cultivation); land planningto determine the most suitable crops foreach area; ending set-aside of arable land;reclamation of highly degraded lands orareas affected by desertification;reforestation of watersheds; and incentives topromote more sustainable activities.

The common agricultural policy hasundergone a substantial reform since 1992and the adoption of Agenda 2000 in 1999.There has been a gradual elimination ofmany subsidies and a reinforcement ofincentives to promote environmentallysensitive agriculture (see Chapter 2.4.). Soilprotection measures have been reinforced

and expanded to encourage organicfarming, the maintenance of terraces, saferpesticide use, the use of certified compostsand afforestation, among others. However,farmers’ participation in agri-environmentschemes is still very low in areas of higherosion risk. Implementation of agri-environment measures can have positiveeffects in the enlarged EU, but considerableeffort is required to support the widespreadadoption of these instruments in theaccession countries.

9.4. Soil contamination

Soil contamination from diffuse andlocalised sources can result in the damage ofseveral soil functions and the contaminationof surface water and groundwater.

9.4.1. Diffuse sourcesThe main diffuse sources of soilcontamination are atmospheric depositionof acidifying and eutrophying compounds orpotentially harmful chemicals, deposition ofcontaminants from flowing water or erodedsoil itself, and the direct application ofsubstances such as pesticides, sewage sludge,fertilisers and manure which may containheavy metals. The soil functions mostaffected by contamination are its buffering,filtering and transforming capacities.Currently, the most important soilcontamination problems from diffusesources are acidification, contamination byheavy metals and the effects of a surplus ofnutrients.

Acidification is the most widespread type ofsoil contamination in WE and CEE, wherevast areas have been affected, especially inPoland (10 million ha including naturalacidification) and Ukraine (about 11 millionha of agricultural land). High content ofheavy metals in soils is reported in Ukraineat the local level (about 5 million ha, mostlyin human settlements and around theindustrial factories) and in Lithuania (nearly3 million ha) (van Lynden, 2000). However,the relatively high heavy metalconcentrations in Lithuania can be partlyexplained by high natural background levels.Contamination by pesticides is common inUkraine (more than 5 million ha) andRomania (more than 4 million ha), wherethe estimated degree of contamination islight to moderate (van Lynden, 2000). TheChernobyl accident (1986) is still a majorcause of contamination by radionuclides inUkraine and some areas of the Russian


205

0 20 40 60 80 100

Belgium

Liechtenstein

Germany

Denmark

Netherlands

Austria

Spain

Sweden

Finland

Bulgaria

Hungary

Germany

Lithuania

Romania

%

Industrial activities

Municipal waste disposal

Industrial wast disposal

Accidents

Others

Figure 9.4.Percentage contribution to soil contamination fromlocalised sources

Notes: Belgium: data refer to Flanders. Germany: industrial activities also includes accidentsand other, and municipal waste disposal also includes industrial waste disposal. Germany andSweden: the percentage share refers to the total number of identified, suspected sites; datarefer exclusively to abandoned sites (not in operation). Bulgaria: others include storage ofpesticides, contaminated soils by mining and industry activities. Liechtenstein: minor accidentsare not included. Denmark and Spain: municipal waste includes industrial waste.

Source: EEA

Soil contamination from localsources, mainly waste disposal from

municipal and industrial sources andindustrial activities, is widespread inwestern Europe as well as in central andeastern Europe, the Caucasus andcentral Asia.

Soil degradation

Federation. Nuclear tests performed in thepast, uranium mining and processing, andthe manufacture of nuclear fuel affectedsome areas in EECCA. Radioactive wastefrom uranium plants, mainly from formerSoviet nuclear test sites, is still stored withoutprotection in Kyrgysztan and Kazakhstan(UNECE, 1999; 2000d; 2000c).

9.4.2. Localised sourcesSoil contamination from localised sources isoften related to industrial plants no longerin operation, past industrial accidents andimproper municipal and industrial wastedisposals. In addition, at industrial plants stilloperating, soil contamination often has itsorigin in the past, and current activities stillhave significant impacts (EEA-UNEP, 2000).Effects of industrial activity (either historicalor currently in operation) that pose a risk tosoils and groundwater, and the spectrum ofthe various polluting activities, vary betweencountries. These variations may result indifferent classification systems and inincomplete information being available insome countries (Figure 9.4).

Sites contaminated in these ways can poseserious threats to health and to the localenvironment as a result of releases ofharmful substances to groundwater orsurface waters, uptake by plants and directcontact by people, and following explosionof landfill gases.

The largest and probably most heavilyaffected areas are concentrated around themost industrialised regions in northwestEurope, from Nord-Pas de Calais in Franceto the Rhein-Ruhr region in Germany, acrossBelgium and the Netherlands and the southof the United Kingdom (EEA-UNEP, 2000).Other areas where the probability ofoccurrence of local soil contamination ishigh include the Saar region in Germany,the Po area in northern Italy, and the so-called Black Triangle region located at thecorner of Poland, the Czech Republic andthe Slovak Republic. However, contaminatedareas exist around most major cities and

there are some individual contaminated sitesin sparsely populated areas (EEA-UNEP,2000).

A wide range of potentially harmful elementsand chemical compounds is used in industry.Handling losses, defects, industrial accidentsand leaching of hazardous substances atwaste disposal sites can cause soil andgroundwater contamination. Majorpollutants include organic contaminantssuch as chlorinated hydrocarbons, mineraloil and heavy metals. In some parts ofEurope, soil is contaminated by artificialradionuclides.

In the mining industry, which is a majordriver of soil degradation in CEE countries,the risk of contamination is associated withsulphur and heavy metal-bearing tailingsstored on mining sites, and the use of certainchemical reagents such as cyanide in therefining process. Acid mine drainage is acommon long-term problem, as for examplein the case of the serious incident at theAznalcollar mine in Spain in 1998. Thedisaster affected a watercourse nearby for63 km downstream and the adjacent land(Sol et al., 1999). Another recent accidentwas the cyanide spill in Romania from the



Notes: France: mean value of estimated total number of sites according to preliminary survey;Romania: minimum value of estimated total number of sites according to preliminary survey.Spain: methods to estimate the total number have been revised therefore data are underconsideration. All: information on completed remediation has not been included; missinginformation in the graph indicates that no data have been reported for the particular country.

Sources: EEA, 1999; 2001

Belgium

Liechtenstein

Denmark

Netherlands

Austria

Spain

Sweden

Finland

Bulgaria

Germany

Lithuania

Romania

0 20 40 60 80 100

France

Italy

Preliminary survey

Preliminary investigationMain site investigation

Remediation activities implemented

Figure 9.5. Progress in the management of contaminated sites

Aurul tailings re-treatment plant at BaiaMare in 2000. This disaster affected planktonand fish in the upper reaches of the TiszaRiver in Romania and Hungary. The spilloccurred in an area already contaminated byheavy metals from a long history of miningand metal processing. Upstream locationsunaffected by this particular spill also con-tained high levels of some heavy metals. Theaccident occurred in a region with a numberof poorly maintained and operated plantsand flotation ponds containing cyanide and/or heavy metals, many of which are leakingcontinuously (European Commission,2000a).

Waste landfilling is another importantpotentially contaminating activity. Onaverage, 57 % of municipal waste generatedin the EU is landfilled, 84 % in CEE (seeChapter 7). Leachate from waste landfillscan enter soil, groundwater and surfacewater. Particular concerns are related tolandfills that operate or have operated in thepast and that do not comply with the mini-mum requirements set by the landfill direc-tive (Directive 1999/31/EC) (EuropeanCommission, 1999).

Contaminated land in CEE is the result offormer military sites as well as industrialactivities and waste management. Inefficienttechnologies and production systems, in

terms of raw material and energy consump-tion as well as waste production, were com-mon in the past. Heavily contaminated sitescovering several thousand square metres (e.g.in traditional large-scale industrial areas) maystill represent a considerable risk to humanhealth and the environment. However, theextent of the contribution of the militarysector to soil contamination is not known, asdata on contamination of military sites are notusually publicly available.

New legislative and regulatory frameworks atthe national and EU level (landfill directive,integrated pollution and prevention controldirective, water framework directive, environ-mental liability directive) are based on theprecautionary principle. Their applicationshould result in fewer inputs of contami-nants, as a result of fewer handling lossesand accidents at industrial sites, and inbetter control of soil contamination (EEA,2001). Nevertheless, much effort is stillneeded to characterise and remediate oldcontaminated sites.

The management of contaminated sites isdesigned to remediate any adverse effectswhere impairment of the environment hasbeen proved and to minimise potentialthreats. The whole process is carried out inseveral steps. Preliminary surveys provide alist of potentially contaminated sites andverify, or not, the existence of contaminationand potential harmful effects to humanhealth or the environment. The main siteinvestigation focuses on the determinationof the extent of the contamination. One ofthe next phases is the remediation plan,which includes a specific remediationinvestigation and measures to reduce adverseeffects on human health or the environment.Targets for remediation and/or safetymeasures can vary according to the proposedland use. The management scheme musttake into account the risk of secondarycontamination due to further retention ofcontaminants by the soil.

Figure 9.5 summarises progress in the man-agement of contaminated sites in 14 Euro-pean countries. Preliminary surveys are faradvanced in most of the surveyed countries.Further stages are proceeding slowly. How-ever, data availability and data access haveimproved compared to earlier assessments.

In general, all countries apply the ‘polluterpays’ principle, to differing extents. How-ever, a considerable share of totalremediation costs has been provided from


207

The first step in the management ofcontaminated sites (preliminary

survey/investigation) is well advanced inmost of the surveyed countries, butsubsequent phases are progressingslowly.

Notes: Belgium: data onremediation expendituresrefer to Flanders; data onGDP refer to Belgium.France: data from 2001.Germany: projection fromestimates of expendituresfrom some of the Länder.

Sources: For EU countriesand Liechtenstein, datarequest EEA (2002); foraccession countries: datarequest new EEA membercountries (2002); WorldBank, 2001

Belgium

Liechtenstein

Denmark

Netherlands

Austria

Spain

Sweden

Finland

Bulgaria

Germany

Romania

France

0 1 2 3 4 5

UK

Hungary

% of GDP

Figure 9.6.Expenditure on contaminated sites remediation inselected countries in 1999 as percentage of GDP

Although the ‘polluter pays’principle is generally applied, a

huge sum of public money has to beprovided to fund necessary remediationactivities, which is a common factoracross Europe. Even though aconsiderable amount of money hasalready been spent on remediationactivities, the share of the total estimatedremediation costs is relatively low (up to8 %).

Soil degradation

public money. Many countries have developedspecial funding tools for the clean-up ofcontaminated sites. For example, in somecountries there are voluntary agreementswith the petrochemical and oil industries tofund the remediation of abandoned petrolstations, financed by a fee included in thepetrol price. Estimates of public expenditureare available from many countries, butinformation on private expenditure is scarceand depends on approximate estimates.

Annual remediation expenditure varies fromEUR 35 to less than EUR 2 per capita in thereporting countries. The average cost for thecountries surveyed was less than 1 % of GDP(Figure 9.6).

In the EU, implementation of new regulationsthat reflect the precautionary principleshould help to avoid local soil contaminationin the future. In the EU countries where dataare available, expenditures on clean-up haveremained constant over recent years (1997–2000). In future, expenditure will probablyremain at a constant rate, except in countriesthat have only recently begun to address theproblem, where an increase is expected. Manyaccession countries have startedinvestigations, and the setting up of specificfunding tools and cooperation with the EUare increasing.

In CEE, most countries (e.g. Bulgaria) stilldo not have strategies and national policiesfor the management of contaminated sites orspecific legislation regulating investigationand clean-up of contaminated land; others(e.g. Poland) have only recently introduced

new laws on environmental protection.However, requirements for soil protectionare generally included in several legislativeacts (e.g. environment protection legislationand water, waste and mining legislation).

9.5. Salinisation

Salinisation, the accumulation of salts on ornear the surface of the soil, results incompletely unproductive soils, which arecurrently found mainly in the Mediterraneanregion, eastern CEE and EECCA. It is causedby improper irrigation methods andevaporation of saline groundwater,groundwater extraction and industrialactivities (European Commission, 2000b).

Irrigated soils, particularly in arid regions,are affected to larger or lesser extent (Figure9.7). For example, about half the irrigatedland in Uzbekistan (State Committee of theRepublic of Uzbekistan, 2000) and some 16million ha (25 % of total irrigated cropland)in the Mediterranean countries (FAO, 1996)are affected.

Salinisation has major impacts on theeconomy. It has been estimated that in thecentral Asian republics, salinisation reducedcotton yields from 280 to 230 tonnes/km2

between the late 1970s and the late 1980s,despite an increased use of fertilisers(Gardner, 1997). Salinisation may also haveimportant off-site effects because salt that hasmoved to the upper layer of the soil can becarried by the wind to other areas.



0,00

3,00

6,00

9,00

Repub

lic o

f Mold

ova

Bulgar

ia

Hungar

y

Uzbek

istan

Turk

men

istan

Spain

(a)

Ukrain

e

Russia

n Fe

derat

ion

4,03

0,02

3,96

1,54

0,60

2,29

0,77 2,

45

% of land area HighModerate

Light

10˚20˚30˚

0˚

0˚

10˚

10˚

20˚

20˚ 30˚

30˚

40˚

40˚

50˚

50˚

60˚ 70˚ 80˚

40˚

40˚

50˚

50˚

60˚

10˚

30˚

60˚

70˚

30˚

Notes: Light: some signs ofdegradation are present, butthe process is still at an initialphase. Moderate: salinisation

is apparent, but control andfull remediation to its currentfunction is still possible with

considerable efforts. High:evident signs of degradation

— changes in soil qualitiesare significant and very

difficult, if not impossible, torestore within reasonable

limits. Spain: area with lightsalinisation not available.Figures at the top of the

graph bars refer to the totalarea of land affected bysalinisation in million ha.

Sources: For Hungary,Ukraine, Estonia, the

Republic of Moldova,Bulgaria, the Russian

Federation and Slovakia:FAO and ISRIC, 2000; forTurkmenistan, Uzbekistan

and Ukraine: state ofenvironment reports; for

Spain: 2000 plan to combatdesertification.

Figure 9.7. Area of land affected by salinisation in selectedcountries

Moderate to high salinisation isaffecting agricultural soils in the

Mediterranean region and in easternEurope, the Caucasus and central Asiamainly as a result of inappropriateirrigation systems. For example,salinisation affects 16 million ha or 25 %of irrigated cropland in theMediterranean.

Map 9.1. Degree and extent of soil compaction in Europe

Sources: van Lynden, 1995;FAO and ISRIC, 2000

Salinisation has a major impact on soilquality and, above certain thresholds,restoration is very expensive if notimpossible. Most remediation projects focuson improving soil condition and recoveringthe land for crop production by improvingirrigation systems and the efficiency of wateruse, and by maintaining drainage systems.However, most of the severely affected areasare abandoned without any attempt atrehabilitation; for example, this applies toabout 300 000 ha of affected soil in theRussian Federation (Stolbovoi and Fischer,1997). Privatisation in EECCA and the lackof economic resources of private owners aremaking the implementation ofimprovements to irrigation systems and themaintenance of drainage systems difficult.Where drainage is too expensive, plantingsalt-resistant plants has helped to stabilise thesoil and reduce erosion (Mainguet andLétolle, 2000). In most countries,rehabilitation projects are linked directly toprogrammes to combat desertification.

9.6. Soil compaction

Soil compaction is potentially a major threatto agricultural productivity (EEA, 1995a;Nolte and Fausey, 2000). The repetitive and


209

1970 1980 1990 2000

Extraction of water

Average river run-off

19600

25

50

75

100

125

150km3

0

10

20

30

40

50Million ha

1965

1980

1970

1990

2000

Territory of salt and dust spread

New salty desert

1985

1975

1995

1960

Box 9.2. Aral Sea: follow-up problems

In the 1960s, central Asia became the majorproducer of raw cotton in the former USSR. Cottoncrops require extensive irrigation and the Aral Seaand its tributaries seemed a limitless source ofwater at the time. The local population grew from14 million to about 27 million and the extent ofirrigated land from about 4.5 million to almost7 million ha between 1960 and 1980. The demandfor water almost doubled (Figure 9.8) with morethan 90 % of the water withdrawal used foragriculture. The water balance in the basincollapsed and, by the mid-1960s, the Aral sea levelbegan to drop, reaching a critical point in 1980(mean level decreased by 90 cm a year) (Islamov,1999). By that time, the excessive use ofagrochemicals together with industrial andmunicipal sources of pollution had already seriouslydegraded the quality of the water. As the seashrank, enormous quantities of salts accumulatedon its bed, leaving nothing more than a salty desert.

Figure 9.9 shows the increase of this new saltydesert to its maximum by the mid-1970s. Becauseof the concentration of toxic salts in the upper soillayer, lack of nutrients and shortage of fresh water,the resulting desert land has been provingextremely resistant to natural and artificialrevegetation (Micklin, 1988). However, the mostserious problem is the blowing of salt and dustfrom the dried seabed, the impact of which will lastfor decades. The area affected by the spread of saltand dust is increasing every year. The disaster hasalso affected the deltaic ecosystems and biologicalproductivity, in particular fisheries, the basiceconomy of surrounding communities. Moreover,the population faces appalling health problems. Anegative effect on climate has also been observed,which has reduced the crops significantly (Hiltunen,1998).

In the catchments of the Aral Sea, mismanagementof irrigation and drainage infrastructures haveresulted in increased river water salinity, soilsalinisation and water-logging. In addition,catchment areas have lost about half of their forestcover and soil erosion has intensified. As well ascreating considerable environmental problems inthe upper watersheds, all these factors have anegative impact on downstream areas.

In the past decade, the countries affected havetaken various initiatives to tackle the problem, withthe support of international institutions. The AralSea Basin Programme was launched in 1994 withthe main objectives of rehabilitating the degradedarea around the sea, improving management ofland and water resources in the basin, and buildingthe capacity of institutions at all levels in order toplan and implement the programme. Theprogramme had to confront many problems,especially limited economic resources in relation tothe scale of the disaster. Demand for water has

Figure 9.8.Water balance in the Aral Sea basin

Source: IFAS and UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2000

Figure 9.9.Trends in wind erosion and salt deposition

Note: ‘New salty desert’refers to the territory thatappeared as a result ofthe sea drying out.

Source: IFAS

levelled off to some extent, but the cultivation ofmany crops remains inefficient because insolvency ofthe water users has precluded the use of advancedirrigation techniques. As a result the water balanceremains very precarious. Some pilot projects arefocusing on integrated management of the land toprevent erosion and rehabilitate the most degradedareas (Aslov, 2000). However, these projects are still ata preliminary stage and extensive action is needed toavoid irreversible losses (Dukhovny and Sokolov,2000).

Soil degradation

cumulative effect of heavy machinery on thesame piece of agricultural land causes soilcompaction — soil particles are pressedtogether and the pore spaces between themreduced. Soil compaction slows infiltrationand increases the volume of surface runoff,thus accelerating water erosion and the lossof topsoil and nutrients. Compaction alsochanges the quantity and quality of

biochemical and microbiological activity inthe soil.

While compaction of topsoil can easily becountered by reworking the soil and caneventually be reversed if the biologicalprocesses in the soil remain undisturbed,deep compaction of subsoil is persistent andcannot easily be reversed (EEA, 1995b).



Deep soils with less than 25 % clay contentare the most sensitive to subsoil compaction(Hébert, 2002). Sensitive soils are commonin Belgium, northwest France, Germany, theNetherlands, Poland and the RussianFederation (EEA, 1995b). Soil compaction isthe main form of soil degradation in CEE,where it has affected over 62 million ha or11 % of the total land area in the surveyedcountries (see Map 9.1). Particularly duringthe time of the former USSR, heavy machin-ery was used on soils sensitive to compaction.The degree of compaction is mostly light tomoderate, but negative impacts on agricul-tural productivity have nevertheless beenreported in more than half of all areasaffected (van Lynden, 2000).

9.7. References

Aslov, S., 2000. Integrated land and watermanagement in the upper watersheds in theAral Sea basin: The case of Tajikistan. In:Land-water linkages in rural watersheds:Electronic workshop, 18 September-27 October2000. Case Study 23. FAO.

Baltic Environmental Forum, 2001. 2nd Balticstate of the environment report: The Balticenvironmental indicators set. BalticEnvironmental Forum, Riga. http://www.bef.lv/baltic/baltic2/content.htm

Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), 2002. BalticSea Hot Spots — Hazards and Possibilities for theBaltic Sea Region. http://www.sll.fi/tiedotus/pressreleases/CCBHotSpots.html

DANCEE, 2000. Management of contaminatedsites and land in central and eastern Europe. Adhoc international working group on contaminatedland. Ministry of Environment and Energy,Danish Environment Protection Agency,Danish Cooperation for Environment inEastern Europe, Copenhagen.

Dukhovny, V. and Sokolov, V., 2000. Integratedwater resources management in the Aral Sea basin.World Bank, Washington, DC.

EEA (European Environment Agency),1995a. Corine soil erosion risk and important landresources in the southern regions of the EuropeanCommunity. Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities, Luxembourg.

EEA (European Environment Agency),1995b. Europe’s environment: The Dobrisassessment. Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities, Luxembourg.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 1999.Environment in the European Union at the turn ofthe century. Environmental assessment reportNo 2. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2000.Are we moving in the right direction?Environmental Issues Series No 12. Officefor Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2001.Environmental signals 2001. Environmentalassessment report No 8. Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities,Luxembourg.

EEA (European Environment Agency),2002a. Environmental signals 2002.Benchmarking the millennium. Environmentalassessment report No 9. Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities,Luxembourg.

EEA (European Environment Agency),2002b. Assessment and reporting on soil erosion.Technical report No 94. EEA.

EEA-UNEP, 2000. Down to earth: Soildegradation and sustainable development inEurope. A challenge for the 21st century.Environmental issues Series No 6. EEA,UNEP, Luxembourg.

European Commission, 1999. CouncilDirective 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on thelandfill of waste. Official Journal L 182. 16/07/1999. Brussels

European Commission, 2000a. Safe operationof mining activities: A follow-up to recent miningaccidents. COM(2000) 664 final. Commissionof the European Communities, Brussels.

European Commission, 2000b. Theenvironmental impacts of irrigation in theEuropean Union. Report to DG Environmentprepared by Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy, London, PolytechnicalUniversity of Madrid, University of Athens.EC, Brussels.

European Commission, 2002. Towards astrategy for soil protection. COM (2002) 179final. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/agriculture/soil_protection.htm

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations), 1996. Report of the FAO


211Soil degradation

Regional Conference for Europe. 20th Session, TelAviv, 29 April–3 May 1996. ERC/96/REP.FAO, Rome.

FAO and ISRIC (International SoilReference and Information Centre), 2000.Soil and terrain database, land degradationstatus and soil vulnerability assessment for centraland eastern Europe (SOVEUR). Version 1.0(1:2.5 million scale). FAO Land and WaterDigital Media Series 10. FAO, Rome.

García-Torres, L. et al., 2001. Conservationagriculture in Europe: Current status andperspectives. In: Conservation agriculture, aworldwide challenge. I World Congress onConservation Agriculture. Madrid, 1–5 October2001. ECAF, FAO, Córdoba, Spain.

Gardner, G., 1997. Preserving globalcropland. In: State of the World 1997 (Brown,L. et al., ed.). W. W. Norton, New York.

German Advisory Council on GlobalChange, 1994. World in transition: The threat tosoils. 1994 Annual Report. Economica, Bonn.

Hébert, J., 2002. About the problems ofstructure in relation to soil degradation. In:Soil degradation (Boels, D., Davies, D. andJohnston, A. E., eds). A. A. Balkema,Rotterdam.

Hiltunen, M., 1998. Environmental developmentco-ooperation opportunities — Kazakstan, KyrgyzRepublic, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. FinnishEnvironment Institute. http://global.finland.fi/english/publications/discussion/envalku.html

IFAS and UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2000. Stateof environment of the Aral Sea basin. Regionalreport of the central Asian States 2000. http://www.grida.no/aral/aralsea/index.htm

Islamov, B., 1999. Doubling freshwater inflowis key to curbing the Aral Sea crisis. In: SlavicResearch Center International Symposium‘Russian Regions: Economic Growth andEnvironment’. Sapporo, 21–24 July 1999. SlavicResearch Center, Hokkaido University,Sapporo, Japan.

Mainguet, M. and Létolle, R., 2000. Waterproblems in central Asia. Gigantomaniashould be replaced by small projects. In:Proceedings of the workshop: New approaches towater management in central Asia. Aleppo,Syria, 6–11 November 2000. UNESCO,ICARDA.

Micklin, P. P., 1988. Dessication of the AralSea: A water management disaster in theSoviet Union. Science 241: 1170–1176.

Nolte, B. H. and Fausey, N. R., 2000. Soilcompaction and drainage. Extension BulletinAEX-301. Ohio State University.

Oldeman, L. R. et al., 1991. GLASOD worldmap of the status of human-induced soildegradation. ISRIC, Wageningen and UNEP,Nairobi.

PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate ImpactResearch), 2000. Proceedings of the Europeanconference on advances in flood research.Potsdam, November 2000. PIK Report 65.PIK.

REC (Regional Environmental Centre forEastern and central Europe), 2001. Finalcountry report Bosnia and Hercegovina withinstrategic environmental analysis of Albania,Bosnia and Hercegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia.http://www.rec.org/REC/Publications/CountryReports/Bosnia.PDF

Rekacewicz, P. et al., 2000. Environmentaldisaster in eastern Europe. Le MondeDiplomatique 7 (July). Paris

Sauerborn, P. et al., 1999. Future rainfallerosivity derived from large-scale climate models —methods and scenarios for a humid region.Geoderma 93: 269–276.

Sol, V. M., Peters, S. W. M. and Aiking, H.,1999. Toxic waste storage sites in EU countries. Apreliminary risk inventory. R-99/04. WWF,Institute for Environmental Studies of theVrije University, Amsterdam.

State Committee of the Republic ofUzbekistan, 2000. State of environment inUzbekistan. State Committee of the Republicof Uzbekistan, Department for managing ofecological information andprognostification. http://www.grida.no/enrin/htmls/uzbek/soe2/english/index.htm

Stolbovoi, V. and Fischer, G., 1997. A newdigital georeferenced database of soil degradationin Russia. Interim Report IR-97-084/November. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.

UNCCD (United Nations Convention toCombat Desertification), 2002a. Synthesis andpreliminary analysis of information contained inreports submitted by northern Mediterranean,central and eastern European and other affected



country Parties. ICCD/CRIC(1)/5/Add.1.Report presented by the UNCCD secretariatat the first session of the Committee for theReview of the Implementation on theConvention (CRIC1, Rome, November).http://www.unccd.int/cop/officialdocs/cric1/pdf/5add1eng.pdf

UNCCD (United Nations Convention toCombat Desertification), 2002b. Synthesis andpreliminary analysis of information contained inreports submitted by affected Asian countryParties. ICCD/CRIC(1)/3/Add.1. Reportpresented by the UNCCD secretariat at thefirst session of the Committee for the Reviewof the Implementation on the Convention(CRIC1, Rome, November). http://www.unccd.int/php/document.php?ref=ICCD/CRIC(1)/3/Add.1

UNCCD (United Nations Convention toCombat Desertification), 2002c. Compilationof summary of reports submitted by Asian countryParties prepared for the First Committee on theRevision of the Implementation of the UnitedNations Convention to Combat Desertification.UNCCD secretariat. http://www.unccd.int/cop/officialdocs/cric1/pdf/3add2eng.pdf

UNDP and GEF (United NationsDevelopment Programme and GlobalEnvironment Facility), 1998. Environmentalproblems of the Caspian region. National report ofthe Russian Federation. State Committee of theRussian Federation for EnvironmentalProtection and Hydrometeorology, Moscow.

UNECE (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe) 1999. Environmentalperformance review of Ukraine. UNECE,Geneva.

UNECE (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe), 2000a.Environmental performance review of Kazakhstan.UNECE, Geneva.

UNECE (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe), 2000b. Meeting ofthe Parties to the Convention on the Protectionand Use of Transboundary Watercourses andInternational Lakes. The Hague, Netherlands,23-25 March 2000.

UNECE (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe), 2000c.Environmental Performance Review of Armenia.UNECE, Geneva.

UNECE (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe), 2000d.Environmental performance review of Kyrgyzstan.UNECE, Geneva.

UNECE (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe), 2001. Assessment ofprogress in sustainable development since Rio1992 for member states of the United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe. CEP/AC.12/3. UNECE, Geneva.

UNEP (United Nations EnvironmentProgramme), 1998. National report on the stateof the environment in the Russian Federation.http://ceeri.ecoinfo.ru/state_report_98/eng/introduction.htm

UNEP (United Nations EnvironmentProgramme), 2002. Caucasus environmentoutlook (CEO) 2002. New Media, Tbilisi.

van Lynden, G. W. J., 1995. The European soilresource: Current status of soil degradation causes,impacts and need for action. Council of Europe,Strasbourg.

van Lynden, G. W. J., 2000. Soil degradation incentral and eastern Europe. The assessment of thestatus of human-induced degradation. FAOReport 2000/05. FAO and ISRIC.

World Bank, 2001. World developmentindicators. http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.html


9. soil degradation - european environment agency · 199 soil erosion affects large areas of europe...

Documents