consider the site specific conditions of the soil. The Soil Protection Act’s focus is
thus mainly on the rehabilitation of contamination of soils by industrial uses.
27
As Germany is a very industrialized country, there is also a need to avoid future
contamination of soil by ongoing or future industrial activities. Thus the German Act
on Immission Control
28 requires an ex-ante permission for industrial sites. The
permission to build industrial sites may only be granted if detrimental effects on
the environment, including soils, are prevented. With regard to the maintenance of
soil functions, it is required that the operator—before production starts—examines
and documents the status of soils on the industrial site and that the operator after the
closure of the site—if significant negative effects have been caused—rehabilitates
the sites to the “original” status.
29 The provision clearly sets an incentive to avoid
negative effects on soils caused by new industrial uses.
Negative effects on soils by urbanization are—again—dealt with in a specific
piece of legislation. The German law on town planning and buildings
30 requires that
soils should be managed economically and careful. The act also demands town
planning processes by which the various concerns—i.e. need of accommodation and
infrastructure, space for industrial uses, protection of the environment, social security—should be taken into account and the potential conflicts between the various
concerns could be settled. The act stipulates that if a town planning decisions causes
negative effects on nature, including soils, these negative effects have to be compensated.
31 This provision is obviously of eminent importance for nature conservation although it also has some drawbacks in itself.
32 Concerning soils, the provision
cannot thoroughly be implemented because a complete assessment of soils is still
lacking in Germany.
Agriculture could be the cause of several soil threads. Contamination could result
from the input of manure, fertilizer or pesticides. For all these categories of substances specific pieces of legislation are in place in Germany, setting i.e. either
emission limit values, quantitative use limits or environmental quality standards.
33
For almost all other—not substance related—soil threats caused by agriculture, such
as soil erosion, decline in organic matter, decline in biodiversity or salinization the
main trigger for compliance with certain standards is the EU funding system.
34
Funds
35 are only be granted if certain environmental standards are abided by.
27 This is of major importance in Germany due to its high population density. Settlements often are
above or close to contaminated grounds.
28 Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen,
Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge (BImSchG), 15.3.1974.
29 § 5 IV BImSchG.
30 Baugesetzbuch (BauGB), 23.6.1960.
31 § 1a III BauGB.
32 Bodle (2017), pp. 297–299.
33 Möckel et al. (2014), p. 215.
34 Möckel et al. (2014), p. 473.
35 The funds make about the half of the farmer’s income.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
41
thus mainly on the rehabilitation of contamination of soils by industrial uses.
27
As Germany is a very industrialized country, there is also a need to avoid future
contamination of soil by ongoing or future industrial activities. Thus the German Act
on Immission Control
28 requires an ex-ante permission for industrial sites. The
permission to build industrial sites may only be granted if detrimental effects on
the environment, including soils, are prevented. With regard to the maintenance of
soil functions, it is required that the operator—before production starts—examines
and documents the status of soils on the industrial site and that the operator after the
closure of the site—if significant negative effects have been caused—rehabilitates
the sites to the “original” status.
29 The provision clearly sets an incentive to avoid
negative effects on soils caused by new industrial uses.
Negative effects on soils by urbanization are—again—dealt with in a specific
piece of legislation. The German law on town planning and buildings
30 requires that
soils should be managed economically and careful. The act also demands town
planning processes by which the various concerns—i.e. need of accommodation and
infrastructure, space for industrial uses, protection of the environment, social security—should be taken into account and the potential conflicts between the various
concerns could be settled. The act stipulates that if a town planning decisions causes
negative effects on nature, including soils, these negative effects have to be compensated.
31 This provision is obviously of eminent importance for nature conservation although it also has some drawbacks in itself.
32 Concerning soils, the provision
cannot thoroughly be implemented because a complete assessment of soils is still
lacking in Germany.
Agriculture could be the cause of several soil threads. Contamination could result
from the input of manure, fertilizer or pesticides. For all these categories of substances specific pieces of legislation are in place in Germany, setting i.e. either
emission limit values, quantitative use limits or environmental quality standards.
33
For almost all other—not substance related—soil threats caused by agriculture, such
as soil erosion, decline in organic matter, decline in biodiversity or salinization the
main trigger for compliance with certain standards is the EU funding system.
34
Funds
35 are only be granted if certain environmental standards are abided by.
27 This is of major importance in Germany due to its high population density. Settlements often are
above or close to contaminated grounds.
28 Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen,
Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge (BImSchG), 15.3.1974.
29 § 5 IV BImSchG.
30 Baugesetzbuch (BauGB), 23.6.1960.
31 § 1a III BauGB.
32 Bodle (2017), pp. 297–299.
33 Möckel et al. (2014), p. 215.
34 Möckel et al. (2014), p. 473.
35 The funds make about the half of the farmer’s income.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
41