Soil Information Working Group (SIWG)

W. Eckelmann, S. Bialousz, F. Carré, B. Jones, M. Kibblewhite, J. Kozak,

Ch. Le Bas, G. Toth, G. Varallyay, M. Yli Halla, M. Zupan, R. Baritz,

J. Boixadera, E. Van Ranst

Common Criteria for Risk Area Identification according to Soil Threats

SIWG Members

Special area of interest Auxilliary Data: S. Bialousz and R. Baritz

Threat Erosion SOM decline

Salinization

Compaction

Landslides

Task Leader

B. Jones M. Kibblewhite

G. Varallyay S. Bialousz F. Carré

Contributors

Chr. Le BasJ. Kozak

R. BaritzM. ZupanM. Yli HallaE. Van Ranst(comments)

G. TothJ. Boixadera(comments)

P. BielekChr. Le Bas

JRC Experts

W. Eckelmann (Chair)

Mandate/Objectives (1)

• Following the Soil Thematic Strategy, the Commission is preparing a Soil Directive, which is expected to ask for the identification of risk areas for soil threats like erosion, organic matter decline, salinization, compaction and landslides.

• In order to combat all these soil threats, the EU Member States are proposed to identify risk areas for these threats, based on common criteria.

Mandate/Objectives (2)

1) What should be the level of detail for soil information

(maps or data) used as basis for risk identification?

2) In the case models are used: what input data at least are

required to assess baseline information or a trend?

3) How should the models be calibrated?

4) What can be the potential contribution of existing EU

data sets or monitoring activities to risk area identification?

Questions to be answered by the SIWG:

Working Plan (1)Activity Rationale

1. Definition of threat Definition of the type of threat; description of the protection concept

2. Identification of factors/hazards related to threat

Identification of the relevant drivers/factors: environmental or human-induced factors steering degree/intensity of threat

3. Characterization of “receptor” (soil)

Selection of relevant soil properties (including soil type, classification) and identification of the sensitivity towards each threat

4a. Decision on performance specification

Specification of the spatial/temporal resolution: e.g. maps scales (1:1Mio, 1:250,000, national larger scales); Tiers relating to different input data quality and resolution)

4b. Selection of model

Choice of the proper model/relevance of modelling; requirements of model calibration and validation; units of measurement, errors of prediction

Working Plan (2)Activity Rationale

4c. Input data availability and data quality requirements

Specification of model input parameters, input data bases, cross-border harmonization, plot data density; analytical quality; method of soil data generation;

5. Validation of results Importance of available long-term monitoring data, model testing/application in pilot areas

6. Definition of com-mon criteria for risk area identification

Conclusions from 2), 3) and 4)

7. Grading and presentation

Reporting dimension, definition of risk categories with reference to decisions on performance specification (4a)

Expected Results (1)

1) Definition of different approaches for risk area

identification,

2) Definition of common criteria for (Tier 1) risk area

identification (information basis to supplement a

Technical Annex of the draft Directive),

3) Identification of required, available and lacking data.

Expected Results (2)

Approaches to risk area identification can be:

qualitative approach: e. g. land use in combination with “sensitive soils”, or other political boundaries using other combined criteria,

quantitative approach: thresholds

model approach

Application of the 2-Tiers approach

Tier Description Characteristics Tier 1 risk area identification available data

low data resolution (probably 1:1,000,000)

qualitative approach, or model (pedo-transfer rule) approach

combined with thresholds Tier 2 measures/implementation

plans to protect soils within the risk zones

higher data resolution (e.g. improved soil maps)

qualitative/quantitative/model approach

No mandate of the SIWG to provide suggestions for the (national) implementation (e.g. monitoring) within risk areas

1:250,000 ?

Time Table Meeting of ESB SC at DGENV: 28. April 2005(Mandate received)

1st meeting, Brussels: 25. / 26. May 2005

1st draft task papers: 12. to 20. June 2005

1st summary writing status: 28. June 2005

2nd meeting, Brussels: 30 June / 01. July 2005

1st draft report: 29. July 2005

Final draft report: 06. September 2005

Report Appendix 'Auxilliary data‘: 16. September 2005

Result presentations acc. to Threats Erosion: Bob Jones

Soil Organic Matter Decline: Mark Kibblewhite

Compaction: Christine Le Bas

Salinization / Sodification: György Varallyay

Landslides: Florence Carré (absent)

and for

Auxiliary Data: Stanislav Bialousz

What to do next?At the end of the first activity of the SIWG some work remains to be done:

• Publishing of the SIWG Report e. g. after additional modifications,

• Updating of the metadata about soil information relevant to threats at member state and regional level,

• Acquiring of data more up to date instead of ongoing manipulating with old and less accurate or even obsolete data,

• Providing a framework to help making national soil information more comparable across administrative boundaries,

• Defining methodological details for risk area delineation, as well as for (Tier 2) modeling and / or monitoring,

• Improving links to other soil related institutions e. g. to EEA and/or EIONET.