assessment and reporting soil erosion

8/16/2019 Assessment and Reporting Soil Erosion

1/103

1

Assessment and reporting on

soil erosionBackground and workshop report

Prepared by:Anne Gobin, Gerard Govers, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Robert Jones, Joint Research CentreMike Kirkby, University of Leeds

Costas Kosmas, Agricultural University of Athens

Project Manager:Anna Rita Gentile

European Environment Agency

Technical report 94


2/103

2 Assessment and reporting on soil erosion

Cover design: Rolf Kuchling, EEALayout: Brandenborg a/s

Legal noticeThe contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commissionor other European Communities institutions. Neither the European Environment Agency nor anyperson or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made ofthe information contained in this report.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int)

©EEA, Copenhagen, 2003

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

ISBN: 92-9167-519-9

Environmental production:

This publication is printed according to the highest environmental standards.Printed by Scanprint a/s:— Environment Certificate: ISO 14001— Quality Certificate: ISO 9001:2000— EMAS registered; licence no. DK-S-000015— Approved for printing with the Nordic Swan environmental label, licence no. 541 055

Paper:— 100 % recycled and chlorine-free bleached paper— The Nordic Swan Label

Printed in Denmark

European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 6

DK-1050 Copenhagen K Tel. (45) 33 36 71 00Fax (45) 33 36 71 99E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.eea.eu.int


3/103

Contents 3

Contents

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.1. Scope of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3. Policy developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4. Objectives and methodology of the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.5. Soil erosion in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Part I — Assessment and reporting on soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. A European framework for the assessment and monitoring of soil . . . . . . . . . 142.1. The assessment framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.2. The DPSIR assessment framework applied to soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.3. Is the proposed DPSIR assessment framework adequate to comprehendsoil erosion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.4. EEA typology of indicators applied to soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Indicators of soil erosion and data availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.6. Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.6.1. Indicators of driving forces and pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.6.2. Indicators of state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.6.3. Indicators of impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.6.4. Indicators of response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.7. Options for the future: determining the risk of soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.7.1. Expert-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.7.2. Model-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.8. General conclusions of review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. Driving force, pressure and state indicators related to land use . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.1. Soil erosion indicators and land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.2. Review of the proposed indicators in relation to land use intensity . . . . 29

3.3. Options for the future on relating land use and land use intensity tosoil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.3.1. Climate characteristics affecting vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.3.2. Vegetation characteristics affecting soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.3.3. Management quality and human-induced factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.4. Conclusions of review of indicators in relation to land use . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4. Regional assessment of the extent of soil erosion by water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.1. Alternative assessment methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354.1.1. Distributed point data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.1.2. Factor or indicator mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.1.3. Process modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


4/103


4.2. The Corine approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.2.2. Advantages and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.3. The ‘hot-spot’ approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.3.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


4.4. The RIVM approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.4.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


4.5. The Glasod approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.5.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


4.6. Comparative assessment of the four methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.7. Options for the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.8. Conclusions and recommendations on implementation of regionalassessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Part II — Workshop conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5. Soil erosion indicators and assessment framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.1. Operational framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.2. Soil erosion indicator work at ETC/Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.3. GISCO databases and tools to derive pressure indicators for soil erosion 49

5.4. Discussion on questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6. Regional and spatial assessment methods of soil erosion and data availability 516.1. The Glasod map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.2. The hot-spot map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.3. Regional assessment of the extent of soil erosion by water . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.4. General discussion on regional/spatial soil erosion indicators . . . . . . . . 52

7. General discussion on indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

7.1. Data availability for soil erosion indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

7.2. Indicators of state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

7.3. Indicators of impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Part III — Recommendations for further work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

8. Recommendations to the EEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

8.1. General recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

8.2. Recommendations related to the DPSIR assessment framework . . . . . . 55

8.3. General recommendations related to the proposed indicators . . . . . . . 56

8.4. Recommendations related to land use and soil erosion indicators . . . . . 57

8.5. Recommendations related to regional erosion assessment(indicators of state) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61


5/103

Contents 5

Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Annex I — List of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Annex II — Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Annex III — Background papers presented at the workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68State of play of EEA work on soil erosion indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Soil erosion hot-spot map for Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Data quality issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72The design and use of this map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Interpretation of the map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Qualitative small-scale soil degradation assessment databases —The Glasod map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74The Glasod map (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Follow-up of Glasod / derived initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Methodological details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Results of the assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Indicators of soil erosion at the ETC/Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79The indicator concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80DPSIR applied to soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

GISCO databases and tools to derive driving force/pressure indicators forsoil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Introduction to GISCO databases and tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Overview of driving force/pressure indicators proposed by the EEA . . . . . . . . . . . 85GISCO and driving force/pressure indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Proposed indicator framework model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Remarks and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Regional assessment of the impact of soil erosion by water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Soil erosion indicators of state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86The revised DPSIR assessment framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Processes of soil erosion by water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Regional assessment methods of soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Process modelling to assess regional soil erosion: Pesera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Data availability for soil erosion indicators at European level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Determining the causes of soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Modelling soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Soil erosion risk assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Environmental indicators for soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Annex IV — Soil erosion glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Annex V — Processes of soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Soil erosion by water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100


6/103


AbbreviationsCAP Comm on agricultural policy

Corine Coordination of information on the environment

DP SIR Driving forces — Pressures — State — Impa ct — Respon ses

DSR Driving forces — State — Responses

EEA Europea n Environmen t Agency

EFMA Europ ean Fertiliser Manu factu rers’ Associatio n

EIONET European Environmen tal Informa tion an d Ob servation Network

ETC/S Europ ean Topic Cen tre on Soil

ETC/TE Europ ean Topic Cen tre on Terrestrial Environmen t

G lasod G lobal assessment of huma n-induced soil degrad ation

NDVI Norma lised differen ce vegeta tion index

OECD Orga nisation for Economic Coopera tion and Development

Pesera Pa n-Europ ean soil erosion risk assessment

RUSLE Revised universal soil loss equat ion

UN United Nations

UNCED U nited Nations Conference on Environmen t and Development (Rio, 1992)

U SLE U niversa l soil loss eq uation

AcknowledgementsSpecial tha nks to the n ationa l experts who pa rticipated in the EEA technical workshop on

indicators for soil erosion h eld in Copenh agen in March 2001; to P aul Cam pling a t the

Katholieke U niversiteit Leuven fo r his help in the organ isation of th e workshop; a nd to

Robert Evan s, U niversity of East Anglia , an d Jau me Fons, Auton omo us University of

Barcelona , for th eir useful comments.


7/103

Executive summary 7

Executive summary

This report has been prepared by theKatholieke Universiteit Leuven under

contract to the European Environment

Agency (EEA) and is the fin al result of a

working group on indicators for soil erosion.

The working group was estab lished by the

EEA in order to progress with the work on

soil in the interim period b efore the n ew

Europea n Topic C entr e on Terrestrial

Environmen t ( ETC/TE) started in July 2001.

In 2001 the EEA carried out a peer review of

its work on soil, with particular reference to

the d evelopmen t of po licy-relevan t ind icator s

and the identification of probable problem

areas for soil degradation (‘h ot spots’) (1) .

The review was in par ticular fo cused on work

on in dicators for soil erosion and soil sealing,

and two associated technical workshops were

held in March 2001 to fa cilitat e th is review.

This report pro vides the background on a nd

an alyses the work do ne b y the EEA on soil

erosion in the p eriod to 2001 and

summar ises the conclusions of th e worksho p

on indicators for soil erosion, held inCop enh agen on 27–28 March 2001.

The purpose of the worksho p was to iden tify

a set of recommend ations concerning

reporting on soil erosion (a s part of th e wider

theme of soil degradation) that could then

be con sidered for inclusion in t he work

prog ram me for t he n ew ETC on Terrestrial

Environment.

Soil erosion is a natural process, occurring

over geological time. Most concerns abo uterosion a re related to accelerated erosion,

where the na tural rate h as been significantly

increa sed by huma n act ivities such as

chan ges in land cover and man agement. This

report fo cuses on a ccelerated erosion caused

by water.

Runoff is the most important direct pressure

of severe soil erosion. P rocesses tha t

influence run off must therefore play an

important role in any analysis of soil erosion

intensity, and measures that reduce runo ff

are critica l to effective soil conservation.

In Europe, soil erosion is caused ma inly bywater and , to a lesser extent, by wind. In the

Mediterran ean region, water erosion results

from intense seasonal rainfall on often fra gile

soils located on steep slopes. The a rea

affected by erosion in n orthern Europe is

more restricted and modera te rates of water

erosion result from less inten se rainfa lls

falling on satura ted, ea sily erod ible soils.

According to the Glasod assessment, in

Europe, excluding th e Russian Federation,

about 114 million ha or more th an 17 % of

the to tal land area is affected by soil erosion,

of which more tha n 24 million h a or

approximately 4 % show high or extreme

degrad ation an d nea rly 70 million ha o r 11 %

are affected by moderate degradation.

The various regions of Europe show differen t

patt erns, for example in th e EU a nd EFTA

coun tries the area subjected t o soil erosion is

about 9 % of the tota l land area. It increases

to 26 % in the candida te countries and to

32 % in the r est of Europe ( excluding t he

Russian Federa tion ). H owever, these findin gsare based on fragmented and non-

stan dar dised information an d hence may not

be consistent.

Soil erosion: a priority at the Europeanlevel

In April 2002, the Euro pean Com mission

ado pted a commun ication on soil protection,

endorsed by the Council of Ministers in June

2002. The comm unicat ion con siders soil

erosion as one of th e major threats toEurope’s soils and a priority for action.

Increasing the awareness amongst scientists

and policy-makers about the problem of soil

degrad ation th rough erosion in Europe is

now an urgen t requirement. The

identification o f areas that a re vulnerable to

soil erosion can be h elpful for improving our

knowledge ab out the extent o f the area s

affected and, ultimately, for developing

measures to keep the problem und er control.

(1) ‘Hot-spot’ maps of soil degradation in Europe were first published in EEA, 2000 and EEA, 2001a. The resultsof a EIONET review of the ‘hot-spot’ analysis and maps produced are discussed in EEA, 2002b.


8/103


In a lon g-term perspective, the

implementa tion of th e work on ind icators

discussed in this report should certainly

contribute to improving the inform ation

basis needed to prepare, implement an d

monitor a sound European strategy on soil,

in line with the priorities set down in thesixth environmen tal action prog ramme

(EAP) and the commun ication on soil

protection.

Policy-relevant indicators on soilerosion

Ob jective a nd measurable criteria with

potential to compare between areas an d

monitor cha nges over time are needed to

describe the condition and management of

soil erosion. The driving fo rces–pressure–

state–impact a nd responses (DPSIR)assessment framework in combination with

the multi-funct ion an d multi-impact (MF-MI)

approa ch provides a methodo logy for the

integrated assessment of the soil

environm ent, enab ling the inclusion of

cause–effect relat ionships into policy-relevan t

indicators. The ap plication o f the D PSIR

assessment fram ework to soil erosion is

discussed in th is repor t.

Following the DPSIR assessment framework,

a set of soil erosion indicators have beenproposed by the EEA and are reviewed in

Part I of this report. A major difficulty in the

development of th ese ind icator s is availab ility

of d ata . The pro posed pressure ind icators

link to the driving force ‘agricultural

intensification’ and all have in common that

they are complex and not d irectly linked to

the ph enomen on of soil erosion. The

identified ind icators of state a nd impact are

difficult or expensive to measure and the

da ta are u sually not rea dily available.

Ind icators of response are prevention a nd

control measures, which are rarely in place at

present.

Land cover/use and management are the

most important factors that influence soil

erosion. Some o f the ind icators proposed a re

related to land use. These can be regar ded a s

a basis for a ssessing pressures tha t m ay result

in soil erosion but th ey require further

ana lysis and inclusion o f oth er factors.

Hu man activities that affect land use and

determine land use intensity include

agriculture, infrastructure, recreation,mining activities or forest management. It is

therefore recommend ed tha t regularly

updat ed Corine land cover data are used in

combina tion with earth observation derived

products such a s the nor malised d ifference

vegetation index ( NDVI) in ord er to capture

season al variation s in land cover. Existing

policies for the prot ection of soils an d t he

degree o f enfo rcement of such policiesshould also be monitored .

Regiona l soil erosion a ssessment is need ed

on a European scale in ord er to make

objective comparisons that may provide a

basis for further environmental analysis,

economic statements or policy development.

Some method s for carr ying out regional

assessments are based on the collection of

distributed field o bservations, oth ers on a n

assessment o f factors, and combina tions of

factors, which influence erosion rates, and

others primarily on a mod elling approa ch.None of the reviewed methods presents state-

of-the-art regional soil erosion assessments.

The G lasod and hot-spot ma ps can be

classified as methods based on distributed

point d ata, while the RIVM and Corine ma ps

can be classified a s factor- or in dica tor-ba sed

maps. Other current d evelopments are

mo del-based risk ana lysis, such as P esera.

Workshop findings

At th e worksho p th e following to pics werediscussed: assessment and reporting

framework; regional and spatial assessment

method s for soil erosion and da ta availability;

and indicators for soil erosion. In dicators

should b e developed according to the

following pro perties an d procedures:

quantitative, objectively calculated, validated

aga inst measurements and evaluated by

experts.

The fo rmulation o f suitable remed iation

measures and mitigation strategies requires a

region al assessment of soil erosion; the

extent an d m agnitude of ar eas at risk is

essential to prepare soil conservation

policies. The method should combine all

four strategies of regional erosion

assessment, i.e. measured data, expert

mapping, factor (thematic) mapping and

regional modelling. Factor- and model-based

approa ches offer the ad vant ages of

repeatability and transparency. However, the

results need to b e validated aga inst

measurements and evaluated by experts so

tha t the models or factor appro aches can bead apted to reflect the reality.


9/103

Executive summary 9

Recommendations

A set of specific recommendations for the

EEA an d ETC/TE was developed with t he

purpose to con tribute to the EEA work

program me and to the d iscussion at the

European level. These recommendations arerelated to the general reporting and

networking mech anism, to the DP SIR

assessment framework, to the proposed

ind icator s by the EEA, to th e explicit

incorporation of land use into soil erosion

indicators, and to the implementation of

region al ero sion assessment s.

In pa rticular, since soil erosion h as impacts

on several med ia, such as water q uality,

working links should be d eveloped with o ther

ETCs an d specifica lly with th e ETC on Water.

Links with other internationa l initiatives andwith d ata providers should also b e

maintained.

A revised scheme fo r soil erosion within the

DP SIR assessment fram ework is prop osed. It

is advised to better explore the dynamics of

the fa ctors involved in this scheme an d to

und ertake a stakeholder ana lysis on the

proposed scheme.

The ar ea affected b y erosion is an importa nt

indicator fo r the state of soil erosion, andshould be complemented with a n indication

of the ma gnitude of erosion in particular

area s. Actua l soil erosion m easuremen ts,

such as those collected for the hot-spot map,

should continue to be compiled. H owever,

the d ifficulty of m aking tru ly objective

comparisons between, an d o ften within, areas

calls for a standa rdised appro ach to record

and particularly map the ob servations.

Therefo re, a Euro pe-wide mon itoring

network for soil such as propo sed by the EEA

(2001b) should include monitoring of soilerosion.

A region al a ssessment using mo delling,

expert estimates and o ther meth ods should

be developed in ord er to provide a general

view and iden tify the hot -spot area s where a

detailed soil erosion monitoring program me

should b e undertaken.

The temporal and spatial patchiness of soil

erosion favours a risk an alysis appr oach in

order t o ma ke comparisons between regions

and to complement field measurements andobservations. Modelling efforts should be

thorough ly validated aga inst erosion

measurements, and a clear d istinction should

be mad e between modelled erosion risk and

present-da y erosion r ates. A prog ram me to

monitor soil erosion across different a gro-

ecological regions and under d ifferent land

uses should un derpin both mapping

exercises and region al soil erosion r isk

assessment method s. O nly then a sound

approa ch is ensured of estimations and

mapping feat ures that are d irectly validatedand compared with measurements.

Moreover, measuring campaigns may lead to

new insights and t herefore to both better

map ping a nd risk assessment s.


10/103


1. Introduction

1.1. Scope of the report

This report ha s been prepared by the

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic

U niversity of Leuven) und er contra ct to th e

EEA an d is the fina l result of a working gro up

on indicators for soil erosion. The working

grou p was established by the EEA in ord er to

progress with the work on soil in the interim

period befo re th e new ETC o n Terrestrial

Environm ent (ETC/TE) started in July 2001.

In 2001 the EEA carried o ut a peer review of

its work on soil, with particular reference to

the d evelopmen t of po licy-relevan t ind icator s

and the identification of probable problem

areas for soil degrada tion (‘ hot spots’). The

review was in particular focused on work on

indicators for soil erosion and soil sealing,

and two associated technical workshops were

held in March 2001 to facilitate this review. A

separat e document was prepared for the

workshop o n soil sealing a nd the ‘h ot-spot’

review (EEA, 2002b) .

Soil erosion is a natural process, occurringover geological time, and may be ca used by

water or wind. Most concerns about erosion

are related to accelerated erosion, where the

nat ural rate has been significantly increased

by human activities such as changes in land

cover and man agement. This documen t

focuses on accelerated erosion by water.

A workshop on assessment and reporting on

soil erosion was held in Copenh agen on 27–

28 March 2001. The purp ose of the workshop

was to identify a set of recommend ationsconcerning report ing on soil erosion ( as part

of the wider theme of soil degrada tion) th at

could then be considered for inclusion in the

work programme for the ETC/TE.

The r eport provides the background ,

an alyses the work do ne by the EEA on soil

erosion ( Par t I) a nd summar ises the

conclusions of th e workshop on indicators

for soil erosion ( Pa rt II).

1.2. Background

The EEA was estab lished by Co uncil

Regulation EEC (No) 1210/90 in May 1990

and started its operations in Copenha gen in

July 1994. The EEA mission is to contribute

to th e improvement of th e environment in

Europe an d to support sustainable

development th rough the pro vision of

relevant , reliable, targeted and timely

information to policy-makers and the g eneral

public. This should enable the Community

and Member States to take the n ecessary

measures to protect th e environmen t, to

assess the results of such mea sures an d to be

supported with the n ecessary technical a nd

scientific issues. The EEA mandate is to

provide informa tion to Co mmunity

institutions and mem ber countries required

to fra me, identify, prepare, implement and

evaluate sound and effective policies on the

environm ent an d to en sure that the public is

properly informed .

The EEA’s main tasks are:

1. to report on the state and trends of the

environment;

2. to establish, develop and make use of the

European Environmental Information

and Ob servation Network (EIO NET);

3. to facilitate access to data and

information supplied to, maintained an d

emana ting fro m EEA and EIONET,

together with access to oth er relevant

environmen tal informa tion d eveloped byother national and international sources.

The role of the EEA, as de fined by its mission

and man dat e, is therefore to provide policy-

makers and the public with q uality

information, and to do so through a range of

prod ucts and services. The a gency works as a

facilitator or bridge b etween member

countries (2), th e Com munity institutions (in

particular the Commission, Parliament a nd

Council) and other environmental

organ isations and prog rammes to bring

together, use, make available and thereby

(2) To date EEA membership counts 30 countries, comprising the EU-15, three EFTA countries (Iceland,Liechtenstein, Norway) and 11 of the 13 candidate countries (Turkey is expected to join shortly).


11/103

Introduction 11

improve the q uality of information o n the

environment relevant at the Euro pean level

for policy-making and assessment. This is

don e thro ugh basic activities, including the

support to na tional monitoring, the

gath ering and storage of existing information

and currently accessible and r eliable da ta,the a nalysis and a ssessment o f d ata to

produce policy-relevant information and

indicators, the reporting of results to th e

policy-makers an d th e dissemina tion o f

information to th e general public (Envision

mod el, monitor to reporting —MDIAR —

core a ctivities) ( G entile, 1999a) .

The Europea n Topic Cen tre on Soil (ETC/

S) (3) was established by the EEA in 1996 with

the objective to provide and develop

information a nd data on soil aspects,

covering all EEA memb er coun tries, in ord erto increase the und erstand ing of soil as a

natura l resource, document soil degra dation

processes an d im prove the level of reliable

and comparable information about

conta minated sites, thus contributing to the

development o f the EEA work programme.

ETC/S op erate d un til Decem ber 1999. A new

Topic C entre on Terrestrial En vironm ent

(ETC/TE) started opera tion s in July 2001.

The ETC/TE is carr ying out the work

initiated by the ETCs on Soil, Land Coverand Marine and Coastal Environment

(terrestrial part o f coastal environment) .

On the basis of the results of the first

EIONET workshop on soil (EEA, 2001a,b)

an d a wider review of th e EEA work on soil

(O ctober 1999), in the perio d 2000–mid-

2001 the implementation of the work

program me progressed throu gh three

working groups on indicators for:

• soil contamination (from local and diffuse

sources);

• soil seal ing; and

• soil erosion.

This report is the final product of the

working group on soil erosion.

1.3. Policy developments

Since 2001 important progress took place at

the po licy level. In fact , the sixth

environmen tal action pro gramme ( 6EAP)

has introduced a n ew strategy on soil

protection for the European U nion. The

programm e, proposed by the European

Com mission in 2001, lays do wn th e

Community action programme for the

period 2001–10 in the field of the

environment.

The 6EAP re cogn ises that ‘ little atten tion h as

so far been given to soils in terms of data

collection an d research . Yet, the gro wing

concerns on soil erosion and loss to

development as well as soil pollution

illustrate the n eed for a systematic approa ch

to soil protection ...’.

Moreover, ‘given t he com plex nature of th e

pressures weighing on soils and the need to

build a soil policy on a sound basis of da ta

and assessment, a thematic strategy for soil

protection is proposed ...’ ( EuropeanCommission, 2001).

In April 2002, the C omm ission ad opted a

communication o n soil protection, endorsed

by the Cou ncil of Ministers in June 2002. The

communication considers soil erosion as one

of the m ajor threats to Europe’s soils an d a

priority for a ction.

A comm unica tion o n soil erosion , soil

organ ic matter decline and soil

contamination, containing detailedrecommend ations for future measures and

action , has been plan ned . To facilitate th is

process, a conference on soil erosion a nd

organ ic matter d ecline in the Mediterranean

with th e participation of the ma jor

stakeholders is being organised by the

Commission an d expected to take place in

2003 (Europe an Com mission, 2002).

In a long-term perspective, the

implementation of the work on ind icators

discussed in this report wou ld certa inly

contribute to improving the inform ation

basis needed to prepa re, implement an d

monitor a sound European strategy on soil,

in line with the priorities set down in the

6EAP a nd the commu nication on soil

protection.

1.4. Objectives and methodology ofthe review

The specific ob jectives of th is report a re th e

following:

(3) ETCs are consortia of organisations that are assigned to carry out specific tasks concerning an environmentaltheme. They help the EEA develop its multi-annual and annual working programmes.


12/103


• provide a summary overview of EEA work

on soil erosion indicators;

• review the EEA European framework for

the assessment a nd monitoring of soil and

the pro posed soil erosion indicators in

relation to d ata availability and ana lytical

soundness;• discuss the link between soil erosion

indicators and land use or land use

intensity;

• review method s for assessing soil erosion on

a regiona l scale;

• present options for future development

with particular reference to existing

European d ata sources; and

• present the results of the workshop on

indicators on soil erosion.

The m ethodo logy adopted in the review

process con sisted first of a ll in th e evalua tionof EEA work carried o ut by a grou p of

experts and th e preparation of a background

report (included in Pa rt I). An ana lysis of

existing approa ches for a region al assessment

of the extent of soil erosion in Europe was

also carried out (see Section 4). A selection

of national experts was asked to evaluate the

results of EEA work on soil erosion a nd

invited to d iscuss the results of th e evalua tion

at th e workshop. Questions to guide th e

review were provided (see Ann ex II) . The

main items of the d iscussion an d th econclusion of the workshop are summarised

in Part II.

1.5. Soil erosion in Europe

The m ain pro blems for soils in th e European

U nion are irreversible losses due to

increasing soil sealing and soil erosion, and

continuing deterioration due to local and

diffuse conta mination. It is envisaged that

Europ e’s soil resource will con tinue to

deteriorate, proba bly as a result of changes in

climate, land use and other h uman activities.

A policy framework is needed which

recognises the environmenta l importance o f

soil, takes account of problems arising from

the com petition amon g its concurrent uses,

both ecological and socioeconom ic, and is

aimed at ma intaining its multiple functions

(EEA, 2000).

Soil erosion, in particular, is regarded as one

of the ma jor a nd most widespread forms of

land degrad ation, a nd, as such, poses severe

limitations to sustainab le agricultural landuse. Erosion red uces on-farm soil

prod uctivity and contributes to water q uality

problems as it causes the accumulation of

sediments an d a gro-chem icals in water ways.

The dynamic relationship between

agriculture and the environmen t req uires

tha t erosion pro cesses be quan tified at

different scales to monitor a nd evaluate th e

impact of agriculture and land use policies.

In Eu rope, soil erosion is caused ma inly by

water an d, to a lesser extent, by wind.

Prolon ged erosion ca uses irreversible soil loss

over time, redu cing the ecological fun ctions

of soil: mainly biomass production, crop

yields due to remo val of nutrients for plant

growth an d red uction in soil filtering

capacity due to disturbance of the

hydrological cycle (from precipitation to

runoff). The major reasons are unsustainable

agricultural practices and overgrazing in

med ium- an d h igh-risk area s of lan d

degrad ation (EEA, 1999a), together withdeforestation and construction a ctivities

(Yassoglou et a l., 1998).

Soil losses are high in southern Europe, but

soil erosion d ue to water is becoming a n

increasing prob lem in other parts of Europe

(EEA, 2000). Box 1 provides an overview of

the extent of soil degradation in Europe.

Some of the fin din gs are shown in Tab le 1.1,

but th e figures shown are only a rough

approximation of the a rea affected by soil

degradation.

H owever, Tab le 1.1 does ind icate the

importance of water erosion in Europe in

terms of area affected. The most domina nt

effect is the loss of topsoil, which is often n ot

con spicuous but n everth eless poten tially very

da maging since it affects the most fertile part

of th e soil profile. Ph ysical facto rs such a s

climate, topograp hy an d soil chara cteristics

are important in the process of soil erosion.

In part, th is explains the d ifference between

the severe water erosion problem in Iceland

an d th e much less severe erosion in

Scandinavia where the climate is less harsh

an d th e soils are less erod ible (Fourn ier,

1972).

The Mediterranea n r egion is considered to

be pa rticularly pron e to erosion. This is

because it is subject to lon g dr y periods

followed by heavy bursts of inten sive rain fall,

falling o n steep slopes with fr agile soils an d

low vegetat ion co ver. Accord ing to present-

da y inform ation (EEA, 2000, 2001), soil

erosion in n orth -west Euro pe is considered tobe slight because rain is falling on mainly

gent le slopes, is evenly distributed

throug hout the year an d events are less


13/103

Introduction 13

intensive. Consequently, the area affected by

erosion in n orthern Europe is much mo re

restricted in its extent th an in southern

Europe. However, these findings are based

on frag mentised an d no n-stand ard ised

information.

In par ts of the Mediterranean region, erosion

has reached a stage of irreversibility and in

some places erosion h as pract ically ceased

because there is no more soil left. In the mo st

extreme ca ses, soil erosion leads to

desertification . With a very slow rat e of soil

formation , any soil loss of more tha n 1 t/ha/

year can be considered as irreversible within

a time span of 50–100 years (EEA, 1999a).

Losses of 20 to 40 t/ha in individual storm s,

tha t may happen once every two or th ree

years, are measured regularly in Europe with

losses of mo re tha n 100 t/ha in extrem eevents (Morgan , 1992). It may take some

time before the effects of such erosion

become noticeable, especially in areas with

the deepest and most fertile soils or on

hea vily fertilised land . H owever, this is all th e

more d angero us because, once th e effects

have becom e obvious, it is usually too la te to

take remed ial steps.

Increasing awareness amongst scientists and

policy-makers about the problem of soil

degrad ation th rough erosion in Europe isnow an urgen t requirement. The

identification o f areas that a re vulnerable to

soil erosion can be h elpful for improving our

knowledge ab out the extent o f the area s

affected and, ultimately, for developing

measures to keep the problem und er control.

Atten tion is focused ma inly on rill- an d

interrill erosion beca use this type of erosion

affects the largest area. O ther form s of

erosion a re also importa nt, for exam ple,

gully erosion, lan dslides an d, to a lesser

extent, wind erosion. Some of these,part icularly gully erosion an d lan dslides, have

serious con sequen ces for lan d use systems

and populations, but in overall terms are still

relatively localised (see Ann ex IV for a

description of th e different types of erosion) .

Box 1 — Soil erosion in Europe

Source: EEA data elaboration from Glasod (Oldeman, 1991; Van Lynden, 1995; data: UNEP and ISRICthrough UNEP/GRID Geneva, 2001).

According to the Glasod assessment, in Europe, excluding the Russian Federation, about 114 million ha ormore than 17 % of the total land area is affected by soil erosion, of which more than 24 million ha orapproximately 4 % show high or extreme degradation and nearly 70 million ha or 11 % are affected bymoderate degradation. The major type of degradation is erosion by water (about 16 % of the total land area),

while erosion by wind interests only 1.5 % of the territory.The various regions of Europe show different patterns, for example in the EU and EFTA countries the areasubjected to soil erosion is about 9 % of the total land area. It increases to 26 % in the candidates countriesand to 32 % in the rest of Europe (excluding the Russian Federation).

Extent of human-induced soil degradation by erosion in Europe (million hectares) Table 1.1

Erosion type Light Moderate High Extreme Total

Accession countries Water erosion 4.5 29.2 14.7 0.0 48.4

Wind erosion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

AC total 4.5 29.2 14.7 0.0 48.4

EFTA countries Water erosion 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.3

Wind erosion 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.9

EF total 1.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 4.2

Rest of Europe Water erosion 0.8 19.3 6.5 1.0 27.7

Wind erosion 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.7 6.5

ER total 0.8 25.1 6.5 1.7 34.2

European Union Water erosion 12.8 11.9 1.4 0.0 26.2

Wind erosion 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1

EU total 13.8 12.0 1.4 0.0 27.3

Europe (excl. theRussian Federation)

Water erosion 18.9 62.0 22.6 1.1 104.6

Wind erosion 1.6 7.2 0.0 0.7 9.5

All Europe total 20.5 69.2 22.6 1.8 114.1 (17.4% oftotal land area)

Note: Any mismatch between totals and disaggregated figures is due to the rounding process.


14/103


Part I — Assessment and reportingon soil erosion

2. A European framework for theassessment and monitoring of soilThe degra dat ion of the environmen t

through soil erosion is an import ant con cern

for po licy-ma kers.

Ob jective an d measurable criteria with t he

potential to compare between areas an d

monitor cha nges over time are needed to

describe the condition and management of

land resources and the pressures exerted

upon the land.

There is now a requirement for

environmen tal protection agencies to

periodically report on th e state of the

environm ent a nd particularly whether this is

deteriorating, stable or improving. Agencies

are dea ling mor e commonly with a

degra ding environm ent, hence the search for

‘indicators’ that can q uantify this

degra dation in some way.

Interna tional o rgan isations such as the EEA,OECD and UN have initiated programmes

on developing measurable an d p olicy-

relevan t agri-environmen tal indica tors to

assess and monitor progress in reach ing

sustainab le development, as defined in

Agenda 21 by the U nited Nation s

Conference on Environment a nd

Development (UNCED).

2.1. The assessment framework

An upd ate of the state of progress of the EEAsoil work program me an d th e relevance o f

indicator d evelopment including the

reporting system were presented at the

EIONET workshop on indicators for soil

contamination in Vienna, 18–19 January

2001 (EEA, 2002a, b).

The concept of multiple soil functions and

competition is crucial in und erstand ing

current soil protection prob lems and their

multiple impacts on the environment. The

EEA considers soil with its multiple

ecological and socioeconom ic functions andmultiple impacts as having a funda mental

role in Europe’s environmen t (EEA, 1999a).

The eco logical fun ctions compr ise

production of biom ass; filtering, b uffering

and transforming; gene reserve and

protection of flora and fa una. The

socioeconomic functions include support to

human settlements; source of raw materials,

including water; and protection and

preservation of cultural heritage. Soil

degra dation means loss or deterioration of its

funct ions (B lum, 1998). Soil losses due to

erosion can be considered as irreversible in

relation to th e time needed for soil to form

or regenerate itself.

The O ECD DSR framework (dr iving force–

state–response) ha s established a h olistic

systems approa ch t o includ e cau se-effect

relationships (OECD, 1993). The OECD

mod el has been extended by the EEA to

cover the causes (pressures) and the impacts

on the environ men t ( EEA, 1999b, 2000).

The DP SIR assessmen t fra mework shows acha in of ca uses–effects from d riving fo rces

(activities) to pressures, to changes on the

state of environment, to impacts and

responses (EEA, 1999, 2000). DPSIR is based

on the a ssumption that economic a ctivities

and society’s behaviour affect environmental

q uality. The rela tionships between th ese

phenomena can be complex. DPSIR

highlights the conn ection between the ca uses

of en vironmenta l problems, their impacts

and society’s response to th em, in an

integrated way. The DPSIR applied to soilresources is shown in Figure 2.1.

In a dd ition to t he DP SIR, the EEA has

defin ed the mu lti-funct ion an d multi-impact

approa ch (MF/MI), based on the

recognition o f the role played b y the soil

multiple functions an d t he prob lems arising

from th e competition between these

funct ions (see Figure 2.2).

Both DPSIR an d MF/MI are an alytical tools

for th e definition of policy-relevan t ind icator s

to d escribe pressures placed upon soilresources, changes in the state of soil, and

impacts or respon ses by society to these

chan ges, within the con text of policy and soil


15/103

Part I — Assessment and reporting on soil erosion 15

resource ma nag ement ( G entile, 1999a).

These tools also provide a fram ework for th e

subsequent int erpretation and assessment of

the indicators.

In environmen tal monitoring, indicators

have been d efined a s ‘parameters, or values

derived from para meters, which point to/

provide informa tion a bout/describe the state

of a phenomenon/environment/area with

significance extend ing b eyond that directly

associated with a pa rameter value’ (O ECD,

1993).

OEC D (1993, 1999) de fines agri-

environmental indicators (AEIs) as attributes

of land units, which are:

The DPSIR assessment framework applied to soil (EEA 2000) Figure 2.1

SECONDARY PROTECTIONPRIMARY PROTECTION

SOIL LOSS

SOIL DEGRADATION

Responses

DrivingForces

Pressures Impact

State

CAP reformNitrate directiveSewage sludge directiveWater framework directiveAir pollution prevention measures

Spatial development/Land usemeasures (EIA;ESDP)

Desertification ConventionDevelopment of a Europeansoil protection policy

INDIRECT(effects on other media, ecosystems and human population) Changes in populationsize and distributionHuman healthChange of biodiversity (soilhabitats and species)Plant toxicityChanges in crop yieldsChanges in forest healthand productivityContamination of surfaceand groundwaterClimate changeWater stress

DIRECT(Changes in soil

function)

Human population

Land developmentTourismAgricultureTransportIndustry/EnergyMiningNatural eventsClimate changeWater stress

Emissions to air, waterand land.Land consumptionAgricultural intensification andmanagement practicesForest fires

Local and diffuse contaminationSoil acidificationSalinisationNutrient load (soil eutrophication)Physical deterioration

Soil sealingSoil erosionLarge scale land movement

Source: EEA, 1999a.

Examples from the multi-function/multi-impact approach Figure 2.2

Preservation of cultural heritage

Biomassproduction

Source of raw material

Support to humansettlements

Species gene

reserve andprotection

Filtering/Buffering

Climatechange

Acidification

Change of

biodiversity

Water stress Soil

Examples of multi-impact approach

pressure on soil / impact on soil functions

impact of loss / deterioration of soil functions

Source: EEA, 1999a.


16/103


• policy relevant an d ha ve utility for users; i.e.

the AEIs shou ld:

• provide a representative picture of

environmental conditions, pressures on

the en viron ment or society’s respon ses;

• be simple, easy to interpret and able to

show trends over time;

• be responsive to changes in the

environment and related human

activities;

• provide a basis for international

comparisons;

• be either national in scope or applicable

to regional environmental issues of

nat ional significance;

• have a threshold or reference value

aga inst which to compare them so that

users are ab le to a ssess the significan ce of

the values associated with them;

• analytically sound; i.e. the AEIs should:

• be theoretically well founded in technical

and scientific terms;• be based on international standards and

internation al consensus about their

validity;

• lend themselves to being linked to

economic mod els, forecasting a nd

information systems;

• measurable; i.e. the data required to

support th e AEIs sho uld be:

• readily available or made available at a

reasonable cost/benefit ratio;

• adequately documented and of knownquality;

• updated at regular intervals in

accorda nce with reliable procedures.

In a dd ition to th e abo ve criteria, the EEA

selects indicators having in mind the ta rget

aud ience, together with the most suitable

level of agg regation and the a vailability of

data needed to compile them (Gentile,

1999a). An overview of the situation is

provided by indicators with a high level of

aggrega tion, so-called h eadline indicators

(Gentile, 1999a), while detailed indicators

are needed to better understand underlying

tren ds or existing links between p olicy

measures an d th eir effects. The ch allenge is

finding an appropriate balance between

simplification and completeness.

The EEA togeth er with its EIO NET partners,

includin g the Europea n Topic Centr es

(ETCs), are facilitating the process from

national monitoring to European reporting

(Figure 2.3). The MDIAR framework consistsof monitoring, da ta collection, information,

assessment and reporting. The set up of a

Europ ean soil-mon itorin g network

har monises nation al networks and enables

da ta compara bility. Data flow and

management entails organisation and

storage in databa ses. Data a re integrated into

indicators and assessed using the D PSIR and

MF/MI approaches. Reporting enables

communication of the results obta ined. The

MDIAR chain concentr ates on matching th e

best available environmen tal informa tionwith the best needed environmen tal and

economic information.

Figure 2.3 The EEA information strategy 'from national monitoring to European reporting' (MDIAR framework)

Source: EEA, 2001b.


17/103


2.2. The DPSIR assessmentframework applied to soilerosion

Figure 2.4 presents th e D PSIR assessment

framework applied to soil erosion as

pro posed by EEA-ETC/S (1999). Po ssible

driving forces can b e grouped a ccording to

huma n a ctivity and physical phenomena ,

which in turn r esult in poten tial pressures on

the land . An importan t driving force related

to soil erosion is the intensification of

agriculture. Intensification of agriculture

encourages unsustainable land use practices

and deforestation, which in turn enhan ce the

risk of soil erosion. These pressures may

chan ge the state of th e soil resources, and

result in soil loss. Soil loss is recognised to

have both direct and indirect impacts on th e

environm ent, exp ressed in term s of on -siteand off-site effects, respectively (Figure 3.4).

The respon ses at t he Euro pean level include

CAP reform, soil conservation measures and

land use practices in a ccordan ce with

sustainable development. However, a

European policy framework on soil

protection, similar to th ose already in place

for air and water, does not exist. Moreover,

there is no reporting mech anism in place to

assess wheth er existing measures are lead ing

to improvement of soil conditions or to

gauge the level of implementation of existing

legislation (EEA, 2000) ( 4) .

The assessment carried out through the

DPSIR a ssessment framework does not a im at

understand ing or ana lysing soil erosion a s a

process, but provides information to support

policy-makers’ a ctions so tha t th e necessary

measures can b e defined an d th e effect of

curren t measures can be assessed.

2.3. Is the proposed DPSIRassessment framework adequateto comprehend soil erosion?

The result of the application of th e DP SIR

an d MF/MI assessment to ols to soil erosion is

the identificat ion o f a set of policy-relevan t

indicators. However, it has to be recognised

that there is a h uge difference between actualand potential soil erosion, which is not

adeq uately reflected in th e present

framework (EEA-ETC/S, 1999). Indicators

describing the driving forces and pressures

may affect the risk of soil erosion, b ut th ey

may no t affect soil erosion in itself, which

also depends on physical parameters such as

climate and relief. A mechanism is therefore

needed to jointly estimate the poten tial and

actual risk, based on links between the

identified driving force and pressure

The DPSIR assessment framework applied to soil erosion Figure 2.4

Source: EEA-ETC/S,1999.

Responses

Forces

Pressures Impact

State

Good agricultural practices- Land use practices in accordance

with sustainable development

- Local programmes on soilerosion consulting

Desertification ConventionDevelopment of a Europeansoil protection policy

On-site

Loss of soil fertility

Changes in soil functionsChanges in crop yieldsDesertification

(Human population)

Land development

Natural events

Agriculture*

*Intensification

(De-forestation)(Forest fires)Land use practices

On-site: SOIL DEGRADATIONPhysical deteriorationSOIL LOSSOff-site: emission to air, water and land

Off-site

Effects on other media, e.g.

- water stress- eutrophication

Economic aspects, e.g.- impediment of traffic- disturbance of drainage

Changes in crop yieldsChanges in soil functions

Driving

(4) In April 2002, the Commission adopted a communication on soil protection, later endorsed by the Council ofMinisters in June 2002. The communication considers soil erosion as one of the major threats to Europe’s soiland a priority for action (European Commission 2002; see also Section 1.4).


18/103


indicators, an d on a n estimation or

measurement of what is actually happ ening.

Agricultura l intensification is seen as the

most impo rtan t d riving f orce ( EEA-ETC/S,

1999; EEA, 2000). However, tourism and

tran sport could be a dd ed to th e list of drivingforces. The effect th ey have in commo n is

tha t they chan ge the lan d cover, which is the

major pressure indicator for soil erosion.

This would lead to a revised scheme for soil

erosion within the DPSIR assessment

fram ework, presented in Figure 2.5.

The D PSIR a ssessmen t fra mework lends itself

to systems analysis and as such is very useful

in describing the relationships between the

origins and con sequen ces of environmen tal

prob lems. Obviously, the r eal world is more

complex than can be expressed in simple

causal relationships. Linkages between the

different types of indicators are explored

through the DP SIR chain. However, the

linkages deserve further attention, not least

to ca pture the dynamics of the system.

Moreover, linkages within one type of

indicators (e.g. pressures) a re no t explored,

despite their repeat edly reported

importance.

The em pha sis of the D PSIR assessment

framework is on socioeconom ic relatedindicators, while physical indicators of

pressure a re no t fully explored , no r explicitly

mentioned . Climate chan ge is considered as

a d riving force but o nly in th e sense that it

relates to huma n a ctivities. Importa nt

physical factors that influence soil erosion

are topo graphy, soil type, soil vulnera bility

and climatic factors (pa rticularly rainfall).

These factors cann ot be separated from th e

identified pressure indicators. On the ot herhan d, th ey are implicitly incorporated into

indicators of state.

A major prob lem with soil erosion is the

temporal and spatial scale of reporting and

the spatial extent to which the phenom enon

occurs. Although problems of bo th spatial

and temporal pa tchiness are well recognised

in the various reports (EEA, 2000; EEA,

2001a), a m ore integrated a pproach of

reporting seems recommen dab le. One

solution could b e to d evelop a regiona l

mod el that a llows for estimating th e potential

soil erosion risk, combined with periodical

mon itoring of actual soil erosion in selected

test areas. The reg iona l soil erosion mod el

should express the links between the

different b iophysical and socioeconomic

facto rs, i.e. be process-based; establish vario us

spatial an d temporal resolution linkages; and

provide a nested strategy of focusing on

environmen tally sensitive areas which ma y

require remed ial measures to b e taken.

Sections 3 and 5 provide more details on the

requirements for future regional soil erosionreporting in ord er to develop sound

indicators of state.

Figure 2.5 The DPSIR assessment framework applied to soil erosion modified from EEA, 2000, and EEA-ETC/S, 1999

SECONDARY PROTECTIONCAP-reform

Spat ial development/Land usemea sures (EIA; ESDP )

PRIMARY PROTECTIONDevelopment of a European

soil protection policy

SOIL LOSSSoil erosion

Mass movementCha nge in soil quality (dep th)

INDIRECT(effects on other media,ecosystems and human pop ulation)

Changes in populationsize a nd distribution

Chang e o f biod iversity (soilhabitats a nd species)

Chang es in crop yieldsDesertification

Water stress

DIRECT(Changes in soil f unction)Loss of soil fertility

Contamination of surface wa ter

Human population

Land developmentTourismAgriculture

Tran spo rtNatural events

Climate change

Land cover changesPrecipitation

Responses

DrivingForces

Pressures

State

Impact


19/103


In th e different rep orts mad e by the EEA, it is

recognised tha t a distinction ough t to be

made between on -site an d o ff-site impacts of

soil erosion. This distinction, however,

already applies at a n ear lier stage in the

DP SIR chain, nam ely at th e stage of state

indicators. Soil erosion can be measured interms of actual sediment loss per unit area

(o n site) or in terms of sedimen t delivery into

streams or rivers (off site).

The current level of detail chosen for the

application of the DPSIR assessment

fram ework to soil erosion implicitly enables

the identification of broad groups of actors

related to the perceived en vironmenta l

problem. However, the full identification of

the several actors involved req uires a more

detailed stakeholder analysis. Environmental

problems can be ident ified and discussed byeach group of stakeholders using

participatory method s for eliciting the

variou s aspects of the pe rceived prob lem. A

general stakeholder an alysis ultimately helps

formulating policies for remediation and

mitigation strategies.

In conclusion, the DPSIR assessment

framework is an excellent tool on to which

further extensions and strategies of reporting

can be bu ilt. The fra mework sets a goo d basis

for identifying the d ifferent fa ctorsinfluencing soil erosion, an d should be

coupled with a detailed stakeholder analysis

in ord er to identify the full ran ge of actors in

the DPSIR chain.

2.4. EEA typology of indicatorsapplied to soil erosion

The EEA identifies four d ifferent t ypes of

ind icator s (EEA, 1999b):

• descriptive indicators, describing th e actual

situation in the DPSIR assessment

framework;

• performance indicators, comparing the

actu al situation with a specific set of

desirable cond itions in term s of a ‘ distance

to target’ assessment;

• efficiency indicators, expressing the

relation between separate elements of the

causal chain such a s between

environmenta l pressures and h uman

activities;

• total welfare indicators, measuring

‘sustainab ility’ in t he form of an index(‘G reen GD P’ or index of sustainable

economic welfare), currently not within the

EEA’s ma nda te.

Efforts related to soil erosion have

concentrat ed o n descriptive indicator s within

the D PSIR philosophy. Without a European

policy framework on soil protect ion, h owever,little progress can be expected on the oth er

three types of ind icators. Sound advice on

how to develop performa nce indicators on

soil protection will be one of th e cha llenges

of th e Europea n Topic Cen tre on Terrestrial

Environment.

Indicators of soil erosionand data availability

2.5. Introduction

The development of policy-relevant

indicators for soil was one o f the m ain

activities of th e Europea n Topic Cen tre on

Soil (ETC/S). The EEA has proposed a nd

discussed a set of indica tors for soil erosion

(EEA-ETC/S, 1999). ETC/S work aimed to

ident ify policy-relevan t in dicat ors fo r soil

erosion a nd to upda te the existing da taba ses

by means of d ata collection req uests. Further

recommend ations were made to assess data

needs and availability, and to set up

monitoring activities. Since climate, soil and

relief are fairly stat ic var iables, the ETC/S

recommend ed groun d cover measurements

to be closely monito red. The EEA have

dra wn up a list of p olicy-relevan t ind icator s

for soil (G entile, 1999b) , which was

presented at the EIONET workshop in

October 1999 and a t the first Soil Forum h eld

in B erlin in November 1999 (Tab le 2.1)

(EEA, 2001a, b).

2.6. Review

Indicators for soil erosion should incorporatethe following characteristics.

• The indicators will be a measure of soil loss

due t o erosion as a result of climate,

topogra phy, soil properties, land cover an d

land management.

• The extent and severity of both potential

an d a ctual soil erosion r isk will ha ve to be

quantified and related to land cover

changes.

• The nature of soil erosion has to be assessed

in ord er to evaluate th e on-site loss an d th epossible off-site impacts.


20/103


Note: Priority indicators are marked in bold.

Table 2.1 EEA draft list of policy-relevant indicators for soil

Issue / question Indicator Units DPSIR

Soildegradationpattern

Short-termcoreindicators

Comment

Intensity of agricul-ture: D Notapplicable

Yes Index ofoutput vs.input

Degree of agricultur-al land use (ALU)?To what extent doesALU intensify duringa specified time with-in a given country?

Consumption of fertilisersper defined region (e.g.Member State) (and its in-crease)

t/ha P Soilerosion

No Availablein Eurostatand OECD

Average farm size per de-fined region (e.g. MemberState) (and its increase)

Euro/ha D/P Soilerosion

No Lowpriority

Average field sizes (and itsincrease)

Euro/ha D/P Soilerosion

No Lowpriority

Average crop yield per area(and its increase) t/ha D/P Soilerosion No Desirablebut notkey

Average net profit per area Euro/hayr

D Soilerosion

No Lowpriority

Number of grazing animals No/ha P Soilerosion

No Desirablebut notkey

To what extent is thearea of membercountries affected bysoil erosion (bothwind and water ero-sion)?

Short term: rough estima-tions by the countries:percentage of area affectedby soil erosion per definedregion (e.g. Member State)

% S Soilerosion

No Desirablebutdifficult toobtain

To what extent is the

total area of Europeaffected by soil ero-sion (both wind andwater erosion)?

Depending on the progress

of validation of the ISRICmap

km2 S Soil

erosion

No Also

outlooks

What is the extent oftotal soil loss by soilerosion (water ero-sion)?

Short term: rough estima-tions:estimation of the total grosserosion of defined areasbased on the sediment de-livery ratio of selected rivers(in dependence of the wa-tershed area)

t S Soilerosion

Yes Alsooutlooks

What is being doneto remove off-sitedamages by soil ero-

sion?

Expenditures for removalsof sediment deposits inbuilt-up areas (traffic routes,

houses)

Euro I/R Soilerosion

Yes Desirablebut notkey

How much is spenton sustainable farm-ing?

Local agricultural pro-grammes to enforce sustain-able farming managementsystems (incl. terminatedset-aside of arable land)

Euro R Soilerosion/Diffusecontamination


How much is spenton erosion preven-tion?

Expenditures for special soilerosion prevention pro-grams, forest fire protection

Euro R Soilerosion


To what extent is theerosion risk area ofmember countriesprotected from soilerosion (both windand water erosion)?

Portion of actual erosion riskarea under erosion controlmanagement (set-aside ara-ble land, strip cropping,contour ploughing, cropchanging, balanced grazing,

reforested), on total area ofactual erosion risk

% R Soilerosion

No Key butdifficult

Source: EEA-ETC/S,1999; Gentile, 1999b.


21/103


EEA indicators for soil erosion tested according to the OECD criteria Table 2.2

E E A I n d i c a t o

r

P o l i c y

r e l e v a n t

U t i l i t y

A n a l y t i c a l s o u n d n e s s

M e a s u r a b i l i t y

E f f e c t

C o m m e n t s

R e p r e s e n -

t a t i v e

E a s y t o

i n t e r p r e t

C o m -

p a r a b l e

S c i e n t i f i c /

T e c h n i -

c a l l y

D a t a

a v a i l a b l e

D o c u m e n -

t e d

U p d a t e d

F e r t i l i s e r u s e

a n d

t r e n d

Y e s

N o

P r o b a b l y

? ? ?

E u r o s t a t ,

O E C D

Y e s

Y e s

C o m p l e x

E c o n o m i c c r i t e r i o n , l i n k v a r i a b l e

F a r m s

i z e a n d t r e n d

Y e s

Y e s

S o m e t i m e

s

P r o b a b l y

N a t i o n a l l y

Y e s

P e r i o d i -

c a l l y

C o m p l e x

N o t l i n k e d d i r e c t l y

F i e l d s i z e a n d

t r e n d

Y e s

I n p a r t

Y e s

P r o b a b l y

N a t i o n a l /

r e g i o n a l

Y e s

Y e s

C o m p l e x

D a t a p a r t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e

C r o p y i e l d a n

d t r e n d

Y e s

N o

Y e s

Y e s

N a t i o n a l /

E U

Y e s

Y e s

C o m p l e x

D a t a f o r a c t u a l a n d e s t i m a t e d ( C G M S

) y i e l d s

N e t p r o f i t a n

d t r e n d

Y e s

N o

Y e s

P r o b a b l y

N a t i o n a l

Y e s

Y e s

N o t r e l e v a n t

S t o c k i n g r a t e

a n d

t r e n d

Y e s

N o

Y e s

N o

N a t i o n a l /

E U

Y e s

Y e s

C o m p l e x

D i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n i n t e n s i v e i n d o o r

a n d o u t d o o r

s t o c k i n g

A c t u a l s o i l e r

o s i o n

Y e s

N o

? ? ?

Y e s

R a r e l y

a v a i l a b l e

I n p a r t

N o

D i r e c t

E x t e n t n o t k n o w n , e x p e n s i v e t o m e a s u r e

D e l i v e r y o f s e d i m e n t

Y e s

N o

? ? ?

Y e s

D i f f i c u l t t o

m e a s u r e

I n p a r t

N o

D i r e c t

M e a s u r e m e n t d i f f i c u l t , s o u r c e d i f f i c u l t t o e s t a b l i s h

R e m o v a l o f s e d i m e n t

N o

N o

N o

N o

? ? ?

N o

N o

D i r e c t

C o m p r e h e n s i v e m e a s u r e m e n t s n o t p o s s i b l e

P r e v e n t i o n

( a g r i c u l t u r e )

Y e s

N o

Y e s

Y e s

P r o b a b l y

n o t

I n p a r t

N o

D i r e c t

U s u a l l y p i e c e m e a l

P r e v e n t i o n ( f o r e s t ,

n a t u r a l )

Y e s

N o

Y e s

Y e s

N o

I n p a r t

N o

D i r e c t


E r o s i o n c o n t r o l

Y e s

Y e s

Y e s

Y e s

R a r e l y

a v a i l a b l e

I n p a r t

N o

D i r e c t



22/103


As accelerated erosion is a complex process,

it is necessary to develop indicators that

identify the causes. Physical factors that

influence erosion rates include topog raphy,

soils, climate and lan d cover. Lan d co ver is in

turn influenced b y the socioeconomic

environm ent and as such by anthro pogenicactivities, notably land use and man agement.

Tab le 2.2 lists the EEA indica tors for soil

erosion with brief comments on th e OECD

criteria listed in Section 2.1. The first six

ind icator s relate to pressures as a result of

agr icultural intensification. These pressure

indicators all have in common that t hey are

complex and n ot directly linked to the

pheno menon of soil erosion. The iden tified

indicators of state an d impact a re difficult or

expensive to measure and the da ta a re

usually not readily available. Indicators ofresponse are prevention a nd control

measures, which are rarely in existence at

present. A more co mpreh ensive d iscussion

follows in th e next sections.

2.6.1. Indicators of driving forces andpressures

Accord ing to th e EEA (EEA-ETC/S, 1999),

the main driving force on soil that causes

erosion in region s with potential an d actua l

soil erosion risks is the inten sification of

agr iculture. This is a comp lex ind icator a nd itis related to different pressure indicators.

The co rrespond ing pressures are co st-

effective but un sustain ab le land use pract ices,

the use of machiner y for the cultivation of

enlarged fields, the overgrazing a nd other

instrumen ts of intensive land use practices

(EEA-ETC/S, 1999). Average field sizes (a nd

increase of field sizes), combined with

average fa rm size per region as well as the

consumption of fertilisers and th e number of

grazing an imals, give an indication of t he

intensification o f agriculture.

The intensification of agriculture is not

necessarily directly related to soil erosion.

The h igher the degree of intensity of

agricultural land use the higher ma y be the

soil loss by water an d wind erosion in

potentially high erosion risk areas, but the

reverse could eq ually be true. For example an

inten sive fa rming system employing soil

conservation measures, such as terracing and

cover crops, ma y result in less soil ero sion

tha n a more extensive system th at d oes not

involve con servation techn iqu es. Intensiveland use can be combined with efficient soil

conservation measures.

Section 4 concentrates on other aspects

related to pressure indicators. On e ma jor

remark is that the intensity of agriculture

should never be evaluated alone in relation

to erosion. Soil loss due t o ero sion is a result

of climate, topography, soil properties, land

cover and land ma nagemen t. Land cover alsoincludes the natura l vegetation.

2.6.1.1. Consumption of fer ti li sers

The pro posed indicator is ‘the consumption

of fertilisers per defin ed region ( e.g. Member

State)’, mea sured in t onn es/ha. The

consumption of fertilisers can give an

indication of th e intensification of

agriculture (EEA-ETC/S, 1999). Another

positive aspect is that d ata on estimated

consumption of fertilisers are available at

national level from the European Fertiliser

Manu factu rer’s Associatio n (EFMA) or viaEurostat/OECD.

The reliability of the data used to calculate

this indicator may be seriously questioned.

The ma in source of inform ation on fer tilisers

in Eu rope is EFMA (see ht tp://

www.efma .org/) . The data from EFMA are

the pro duction o f fertiliser from th e

associated members. Then the EFMA uses

da ta on imports and exports to calculate

fertiliser use or consumption a t th e na tional

level. For example, the current approach is:

(Fertiliser con sumption {in a Memb er State})

= (production) — (exports) + (imports)

(2.1)

To determin e th e actua l fertiliser use by

equa tion ( 2.1), certain ad justments should

be applied to take account of losses (e.g. 10–

15 %) a nd use outside general agriculture,

for example in market and domestic gardens

(e.g . 10 %). H owever, fertiliser app lications

vary for differen t cro ps so it is not po ssible to

predict the consumption of fertilisers using

this approach without knowing precisely the

spatial distribution of crops and local

agricultural practices.

The m ain con clusion is the higher the

degree o f intensity of a gricultural lan d use,

the h igher the likely loss of soil throug h

water and wind erosion in po tentially high

ero sion risk area s (EEA-ETC/S, 1999).

H owever, fertiliser consumption da ta cann ot

be determined a ccurately enough to be used

as an indicator fo r soil erosion a t the scalereq uired. Moreo ver, fertiliser applicat ions

may increase when using soil conservation

measures so tha t soil erosion d ecreases.


23/103


Togeth er with con sumption of fert ilisers,

average fa rm size (per defined region ( e.g.Member State) a nd its increase), average

field size (an d its increase), average cropyield (per area and its increase), average netprofit (per area) and nu

assessment and reporting soil erosion

Documents