Newsletter
Back
EU’s Soil Monitoring Directive approved despite opposition

The EU’s Soil Monitoring Directive has been approved. Germany, along with other EU countries such as Austria, the Netherlands and Romania, had indicated that it will not support the Directive due to its commitments to farmers not to impose new regulations and documentation requirements. This opposition was despite substantial dilution of the Directive by the EU, so that it doesn’t place any new burdens on farmers. Now that the Directive has been approved, what’s next for Europe’s soil health?

Euroactiv reported yesterday that some EU countries were moving to ‘bury’ the EU Soil Monitoring Directive.

Germany opposed the new law, the news outlet said. However, supporters were evenly matched, with Poland and Spain supporting it. German MEP Oliver Schenk (EPP), who had initially supported the law, said the law was too bureaucratic and that they “…have promised farmers that they would be spared from new regulations and documentation requirements.” 

According to Euroactiv, Germany has historically opposed EU controls over land policy and is also facing opposition from the German mining sector.

However, despite this opposition, the law was approved in the European parliament yesterday by 341 votes to 220.

The final text, agreed in April, adds no new obligations on farmers or foresters. Instead, the burden lies with individual governments, which are expected to track and improve soil health, with a non-binding goal of meeting healthy soil benchmarks across the bloc by 2050. This will include contaminants like microplastics. Indeed, individual countries and industries have praised the law’s ‘flexibility’ and lack of burdens.

Farmers’ organisations were split, with the EU’s young farmers’ group, CEJA, in support of the directive, while Copa Cogeca, the bloc’s leading farm organisation, urging MEPs to vote against, despite initially being supportive.

MEP Martin Günther of Die Linke, Germany, who sits with The Left on the ENVI and ECON Committees, said: “The Soil Monitoring Law could certainly be much stronger. The ambition to achieve healthy soils by 2050 has been weakened, and the whole of Annex III on the list of Sustainable Soil Management Principles, which would have ensured the uptake of sustainable soil management practices, has been deleted. The EPP sought to weaken the text at every opportunity, including tabling a rejection amendment in plenary to kill the law completely. However, we should not underestimate the importance of an EU monitoring framework. The data collection will be crucial for soil and other environmental policies in the future, and I am hopeful we can build on the framework in the future.”

Soil health in the EU

The EU Soil Observatory created a soil health dashboard as part of the development of the Soil Monitoring Directive. It created 15 indices of soil degradation processes, and has so far revealed that:

  • 61% of EU soils are in an unhealthy state – a figure likely to be an underestimation given the inability to assess soil contamination.
  • The top forms of degradation discovered so far include loss of soil organic carbon (53%), loss of soil biodiversity (37%), and the risk of peatland degradation (30%).
  • Soils are subject to many intersecting forms of degradation (Source: Joint Research Centre 2023).

Europe is not only combating soil degradation. Desertification is also an emergent issue as climate change creates heatwaves and extended droughts.

The UN’s FAO created this video to show the importance of a healthy soil ecosystem to biodiversity and human health.

Urgent action is needed

Productive food systems are one of the most beneficial aspects of European life. Failing to tackle soil health would have risked environmental and human health.

Europe and countries arguing for greater environmental protections are under immense pressure from powerful interests that reject environmental agendas. Environmental laws require political will, and we need to find ways to make sure we continue to make advancements.

As the FAO video shows, without healthy soil, we will experience declining crop productivity and, in the long term, the prospect of governments being unable to feed their populations.

What can citizens do about soil health?

That the Soil Monitoring Directive was approved is great news, but we can’t stop there.

Here is what you can do to make sure both that these measures are implemented and that we continue the work of innovating to protect soils:

Firstly, writing to your representatives can provide them with a different perspective, outside of the lobbying ecosystem. Votes matter, and if you want healthier soils, you need to tell your MEPs.

Secondly, one crucial aspect of the EU is that it funds numerous environmental science projects, such as MINAGRIS, which examines the impact of microplastics on soil health. And a key component of many Horizon programmes is citizen science – an opportunity for members of the public to be involved in science that tackles real-world and urgent problems.

For example, MINAGRIS developed the Soil Plastic app to gather information about plastic sightings in soils across the EU. It is surprising how much plastic you can find in soils once you start looking. Signing up for the App may show representatives and citizens just how much of a problem plastic waste is. Growing awareness may increase pressure to develop more effective recycling schemes, reduce single-use plastics, and protect our soils.

Read the information below and search for the Soil Plastic App in your app store.

 Closing Knowledge Gaps

One of the most significant barriers to progress is the lack of reliable data. Information on the use, distribution and end-of-life management of agricultural plastics remains limited across Europe. Monitoring systems are often inconsistent, and harmonised methods for sampling and analysing microplastics in soil are still lacking. Data on the multiple sources of plastic in soil is also missing.

There is also a need for improved knowledge exchange. Farmers and land managers frequently lack access to clear guidance on plastic management, while awareness of microplastic pollution remains uneven across the sector. Training programmes, advisory services and information campaigns were identified as important tools for improving practice and reducing plastic leakage into the environment.

Improving End-of-Life Management

End-of-life management represents the most urgent area for intervention. Current systems face a combination of technical, economic and logistical challenges. Agricultural plastics are often contaminated with soil and organic matter, making collection and recycling difficult and costly. In many countries, recycling infrastructure remains insufficient, while the economic viability of recycling facilities can be uncertain. The limited implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes and the absence of coordinated national collection systems is an underlying problem.

Addressing these barriers through better collection networks, improved recycling infrastructure and stronger producer responsibility frameworks could significantly reduce plastic leakage into soils and the wider environment.

Related posts

Rethinking Plastic Use and Product Design

While end-of-life management was often considered the highest priority in the stakeholder survey, improved product design, reduced material use and the integration of circular economy principles were all identified as important opportunities. There was, however, limited support among some sectors for strategies focused solely on reducing plastic use. Many industry respondents viewed continued use of agricultural plastics as essential for maintaining agricultural productivity and food security. They also pointed to other source of microplastics in soil.

 The Role of Biodegradable and Compostable Alternatives

When designed, certified and used appropriately, biodegradable and compostable agricultural plastics have the potential to play a significant role in enhancing the sustainability of agricultural systems. This is particularly the case where product recovery after use is technically challenging, economically impractical, or associated with a high risk of environmental leakage. However, this can only be fully achieved if compliance with regulations on use of mulch films is adhered to. Uncertainties around performance, degradation processes and environmental impacts remain.

In the stakeholder survey, support was strongest for biodegradable applications for mulch films and other non-recoverable products, including certain tree guards and coated agricultural inputs. Respondents recognised their potential to simplify end-of-life management, reduce the risk of plastic leakage and complement existing collection and recycling systems. At the same time, stakeholders highlighted the importance of maintaining high standards of environmental performance, transparency and product stewardship. However, concerns among MINAGRIS consortium remain regarding, transparency around additives and the potential effects of degradation products in soil ecosystems. The importance of compliance with recognised international standards and legislation was emphasised. Again building user knowledge and awareness was identified as essential.

 

Governance Matters

These challenges show how governance is a critical factor in reducing microplastic pollution. The current legislative landscape is seen as fragmented and only partly effective.

 

Successful policy frameworks are likely to require:

  • Strong monitoring, data availability on production and end-of-life of plastics materials and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Well-designed economic incentives.
  • Better knowledge sharing and dissemination.
  • Meaningful stakeholder engagement across the value chain.
  • Harmonised approaches to producer responsibility and collection systems.
  • Compliance in the market with the EU and international regulatory framework for biodegradable plastics.

Areas of Broad Consensus

Despite differences in evidence and perspective between researchers, policy makers, farmers, industry representatives and NGOs expressed in the literature and in the surveys conducted, several common themes emerged:

  • Knowledge gaps remain a major obstacle: Better data (covering all the value chain), monitoring systems and evidence are essential for effective policy development and evaluation, while industry and users need awareness raising and advice.
  • Economical sustainability of the recycling system: economic feasibility of recycling both in terms of process and price of final products is important.
  • End-of-life management is a priority: Investment in collection and recycling infrastructure is widely seen as the most immediate opportunity for reducing plastic leakage.
  • Eco-design is critical: Products should be designed with their entire lifecycle in mind, including recovery, recycling and disposal.
  • Extended Producer Responsibility is strongly supported: Harmonised EPR schemes and national collection systems are critically needed.

A Systems-Based Path Forward

The evidence is clear: reducing microplastic pollution in agricultural soils will require coordinated action across the entire value chain. No single technology or intervention can solve the problem. End-of-life management is a priority, a combination of better design, optimized and environmentally sustainable use of plastics, and appropriate biodegradable alternatives will also be needed.

A successful strategy must combine lifecycle thinking, stakeholder collaboration, robust governance, improved monitoring and practical solutions for plastic use and end-of-life management. Only through a systems-based approach can Europe effectively reduce microplastic emissions while maintaining the benefits that plastics provide to modern agriculture.

Footnote About the BREF

The BREF (Best Available Techniques Reference) document has been developed to provide scientific and technical guidance on the sustainable use of plastics in agriculture, with a particular focus on preventing and reducing micro- and nanoplastic emissions to soils and connected ecosystems. It is intended as a practical reference for growers, industry stakeholders, technical advisers, policy makers and standardisation bodies. It sets out 8 Best Available Techniques. Read the document by clicking here.