Research is done not for the sake of itself but to change how we live, produce, consume and behave. This is also true for the research that is done in SOILPROM. SOILPROM aims to deliver better models that predict pollutant movements and impacts in soils. SOILPROM also aims to support stakeholders in adopting sustainable land use strategies and it aims to develop policies for healthy soils. In doing so, SOILPROM contributes to reduce soil pollution across the EU.

One leeway to change how we live, produce, consume and behave is policy. Policy prescribes, prohibits or incentivizes certain activities. The EU for instance limits the use of certain plastic particles in cleaning products and prescribes how soils have to be managed if farmers want to receive the subsidies of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Policy research in SOILPROM

UFZ is responsible for the policy research in SOILPROM. The approach we adopt boils down into four steps:

• understand the environmental problem such as PFAS or metals pollution in soils,
• collect and analyze the central policies which address the environmental problem,
• identify governance problems in these policies such as e.g., enforcement and control issues and
• propose alternative and improved policies.

Ultimately, UFZ will develop concrete policy recommendations and coordinate land use recommendations for the SOILPROM use-cases.

Findings on two policy analyses

At this stage, we have published two policy analyses – one on soil plastic pollution policies and another one on the Common Agricultural Policy. Here, we will take a quick look at some of our findings:

Example I: Soil plastic pollution policies

Because several SOILPROM use-cases investigate how plastic particles move in the environment and soils, we decided to take a closer look at how the EU regulates plastic in soils.

Collecting the relevant policies was not an easy task as a lot of different policies directly or indirectly touch upon soil plastic pollution. While finding the policies which directly address (soil) plastic pollution was quite straightforward as they usually have “plastic” in their title, finding the “indirect policies” was not as simple. Still, we found that soil plastic pollution is addressed in product policies for e.g., fertilizers and chemicals and also in environmental protection policies, such as soil protection and wastewater law. Here, we shed some light onto two policies that we analysed.

Source: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/ai-generated-pollution-garbage-8282135/

The recently adopted Soil Monitoring Law for instance, requires that Member States set up a monitoring system to assess soil health in their countries. If Member States decide to monitor soil plastic pollution within this framework, comprehensive data on this issue would be generated. This data is a much-needed prerequisite to better protect soils. However, as the monitoring of plastic in soils is not a mandatory obligation (as opposed to some other soil parameters), it remains unclear if comprehensive data will be collected and any impact on soil plastic pollution achieved. The Soil Monitoring Law is lacking target stringency.

In contrast to this non-mandatory obligation, Fertilizer Law demands that if plastic particles are added to certain fertilizers to e.g., better release nutrients, they must comply with biodegradability criteria. Besides that, the Law requires that composts and some recycled fertilizers cannot be sold if (plastic) impurities are above a certain threshold. In doing so, the Fertilizer Law contributes to reduce some plastic into soils.

Overall, we find that while these piece-meal amendments are important, they will not be powerful enough to really tackle (soil) plastic pollution. What is needed instead is an effective climate policy that phases out fossil fuels and thereby almost all plastic (most plastic is based on crude oil) or a policy which regulates the overall amount of plastic on markets.

Here you can find all of our results.

Example II: Common Agricultural Policy

For our second analysis, we collaborated with colleagues from the German Environment Agency to develop policy recommendations for the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). We decided to analyze the CAP as a few SOILPROM use-cases are located in agricultural landscapes and investigate “agricultural-specific” pollutants such as pesticides and nutrients. We thus slightly amended our research approach by explicitly looking into one policy only and by focusing on developing alternative and improved policy recommendations. This is because we discussed the governance problems of the CAP in an earlier article.

Source: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/ai-generated-plant-growth-sprouting-9073529/

The CAP is the central policy for the agricultural sector. It is essentially a very large subsidy policy where farmers receive money for their farming activities. The CAP is reformed every seven years and the most recent reform process has started in 2025, so we are hoping that our policy recommendations will inform the reform process to make sure the CAP better protects soils and effectively addresses soil pollution. We recommend that:

1. (food) security, competitiveness and simplification are not pursued at the expense of environment and climate protection,
2. CAP funds are more strongly linked to environmental impacts (‘pay for performance approach’),
3. the competitiveness for sustainable farming is improved,
4. CAP subsidies focus on environmental performance rather than certain categories such as small enterprises or young farmers,
5. entrepreneurial freedom is incentivized as much as possible and
6. resilience enhanced by supporting circular economy principles.

However, whether or not the new CAP will better ultimately support sustainable farming activities and thereby for example motivate farmers to reduce pesticides and nutrient inputs into soils is written on another paper. Current policy developments in the Commission and Council point in a different direction.

Still, here you can find the published CAP article.

From here, our next policy analyses will even more closely target the SOILPROM use-cases. To do this, we started to assess the pesticide policy landscape around the SOILPROM use-case in Jülich and want to look into a comparative analysis of the nutrient use-cases in Poland and Norway. In doing so, we are hoping to do research that is done not for the sake of itself but to change how we live, produce, consume and behave.

Authors

Katharine Heyl is a postdoctoral researcher at the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research where she works in the Department of Environmental and Planning Law. Her primary task in SOILPROM is the analysis of soil pollution policies at the EU, national and local level. She will also organize a workshop to discuss results with other researchers and policy makers, and coordinate the development of use-case recommendations towards the end of the project. Katharine obtained her PhD with a dissertation on the Common Agricultural Policy and has previously worked on several environmental policy areas of the EU.

Jessica Stubenrauch is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Environmental and Planning Law at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. She coordinates the governance research related to soil pollution in SOILPROM. This involves analyzing soil pollution policies at different levels of governance, organizing a stakeholder workshop to discuss the derived policy recommendations and coordinating the specific use-case recommendations. Jessica obtained her PhD with a dissertation on phosphorus governance from a cross-national perspective. She specializes in sustainable land use policies that align with international climate and biodiversity targets, with a particular focus on environmental chemicals.