This section provides a review of the knowledge gaps. It starts with the top 10 knowledge gaps identified in the rank order indicated in Table 4. Compared to the discussion of the three key knowledge gaps under 3.1., the other top seven knowledge gaps’ discussion under 3.2. is shorter in length (as required by the template provided to each TTs by the project’s leadership) and thus in depth. The rank order of the knowledge gap (within the top 10) is indicated by the number in the brackets. All introductions of the knowledge gaps include: 1. a summary, and information on 2. the state of the art, on 3. actions and on 4. bottlenecks. Subsection 3.3. provides the list of the knowledge gaps currently identified. For the top ten knowledge gaps the information includes: 1. ranking, 2. title, 3. shortened summary, 4. type of the knowledge gaps, 5. actions, 6. type of actions, 7. timeframe for actions, 8. bottlenecks. For the knowledge gaps outside of the top 10 knowledge gaps only the title and a short description is given. The number in the 'ranking' column does not reflect priority.
The introduction of the top 10 knowledge gaps does not cover all three domains of the conceptual framework. The focus reflects the main issues elaborated in the referenced literature. Table 5. below links the knowledge gaps to the conceptual framework’s domains. It is important to note that the indication of a domain does not mean that all aspects of it are discussed under the given knowledge gap.
As it is shown by the Table 5., the knowledge gaps are not yet linked to all domains of the Conceptual Framework. This exercise will be completed in the next phase. Table 5. in its present form serves as a guideline towards the future work of the PRTT. PRTT's aim is aim to provide an optimal level of generalization of the issues relevant to all domains of the conceptual framework, and to the Soil Mission Objectives.
3.1 Key knowledge gaps
Under this heading the top three knowledge gaps which received the most votes during the prioritisation process are introduced.
3.1.1 Impact of soil pollutants (individual and mixtures, short-term and long-term) on soils and soil ecosystem services
Summary of the Knowledge Gap (Knowledge Gap 1)
The impacts of soil pollution are far-reaching and multifaceted, and pose significant challenges to environmental sustainability, public health and socio-economic well-being. Significant knowledge gaps exist concerning the impact of soil pollutants on soil characteristics, including on soil properties, soil biodiversity, soil functioning, aboveground organisms and the delivery of ecosystem services. For the majority of pollutants, there are no comprehensive (eco)toxicity data, and hence risk assessments, available (e.g. pesticides, volatiles, antibiotics, microplastics). Large data gaps remain on i) cocktail/mixtures and ii) cumulative and synergistic effects, while mixtures of soil pollutants in soils reflect the factual status. Large data gap exists on cocktail/mixture/cumulative/synergistic effects, including a general lack of knowledge on individual substances (presence and interactions in soil, transport and fate, mobility and persistence, ecotoxicological properties, bioaccumulation and bioavailability, exposure of and risk to the environment)
State of the Art
The impacts of soil pollution are far-reaching and multifaceted, and pose significant challenges to environmental sustainability, public health and socio-economic well-being (De Vries et al. 2022European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024). Soil pollution is a main factor of decline in soil biodiversity (Tibbett et al. 2020 Gardi et al. 2013).
When data on toxicity and risk are available, they often focus on one pollutant and source, and are limited to a small set of test organisms, usually single species (animals, plants, bacteria, fungi) that are easy to breed, during a short time frame, focusing on a single toxic endpoint, in controlled (laboratory) conditions.
Cocktails of pollutants in soil include both co-occurrences of different pollutants within the same group of chemicals (e.g. different pesticides) and the co-occurrence of pollutants from different chemical groups (e.g pesticides and plastics). It is essential that the impact of long-term effects of mixtures of pollutants in field conditions is taken into account, to assess the probable impacts of soil pollution on long-term soil health and ecosystem functioning. Although available research clearly shows the extensive impacts and risks of soil pollution on soil characteristics, biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem services, large data gaps still remain. The high complexity of soil and interactions of soil compounds, organisms and contaminants provides a large challenge in assessing the full impact of soil pollution on the delivery of ecosystem services. (Rodríguez-Eugenio et al. 2018, Vieira et al. 2024)
The knowledge gaps regarding the impact of soil pollution on soil biodiversity and soil ecosystem services are multifactorial. 1) To date, the full scope of soil pollutants remains unknown, with only a selection of pollutants being measured, and harmonised monitoring data lacking. 2) Also, for the pollutants for which more data are available, comprehensive risk assessment is mostly lacking, as risk assessment mostly focuses on single pollutants and their short-term impact on single organisms, as described above. 3) Although available research shows the presence of complex mixtures of soil pollutants mostly everywhere, the impact of the combined effects of these mixtures is largely unknown. For a number of decades, it has been recognized that an integrative approach focused on complex mixtures of pollutants is needed to increase understanding of their full extent and potential impacts (Reeves et al. 2001, Albert 1987). Available research shows the extensive negative impact of soil pollution on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Some first steps have been taken to work towards more integrative approaches to assess the full impact of soil pollution on soil biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a more integrative assessment of soil pollutants. The SML includes calls for chemical and biological indicators as soil descriptors, for the assessment of soil health. Andres et al. 2022 suggested an indicator for in-soil organisms, and used ecotoxicological data, chemical occurrence and habitats for the indication of risks. However, available knowledge is still very limited, and extensive knowledge gaps remain. Based on review of literature and exchange with stakeholders, the following main groups of pollutants are addressed under this knowledge gap: pesticides, plastics, veterinary medicines, metals, excess of nutrients, pesticides and emerging contaminants/forever chemicals, with references to common features and differences. During the further work within the PRTT, the range of contaminants discussed might be further expanded.
All mentioned pollutants are major soil contaminants. They are either intentionally (pesticides, nutrients) or unintentionally (metals, veterinary medicines, plastics) released in soils where they impose adverse effects on non-target organisms. Amongst them, soil macro-organisms, mesofauna and microbiota constitute a key protection goal considering their contribution in key ecosystem services as they modulate soil fertility and soil structure, produce and store GHG, and degrade organic pollutants (Fierer 2017). The impact of soil pollution also reaches much further than soils, and leads to contamination of the wider, aboveground ecosystems, air and water bodies (groundwater, drinking water, freshwater and marine water) (Albaseer et al. 2025, Vieira et al. 2023). Despite the common features, all of them have their own characteristics.
Pesticides
Use of pesticides is widespread, and diffuse pollution by agro-chemicals has become a major soil threat (Stolte 2016, Silva et al. 2019; FAO et al. 2020, Vieira et al. 2023). Sabzevari and Hofman (2022) reviewed the worldwide occurrence of Commonly Used Pesticides (CUPs) in agricultural soils. Franco et al. (2024) identified risks for in-soil organisms on an European scale.
Complementary, Silva et al. (2023) highlighted the presence of pesticide residues across European environments, underscoring the need for better public data accessibility to track and eventually also regulate such pollutants. Nowadays, multiple efforts are made to create such datasets which will hopefully help us in the future (e.g. IPCHEM, NORMAN). In general, current risk assessment does not capture cumulative, combined and chronic exposure to pesticides, and resulting impacts on soil biodiversity, overall biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Honert et al. 2025, Devos et al. 2022, Bopp et al. 2019, Sousa et al. 2022, EEA 2023b, van Gestel et al. 2020, Knillmann and Liess 2021). Risk assessment and research also focus mostly on the impact of single active substance or pesticide products, while large data gaps remain on the impact of tank mixtures (when different pesticide products are mixed and applied together) and environmental mixtures (the presence of different pesticide residues and other pollutants in the environment). More research is available on the toxicity and impact of active substances of pesticides, than on the impact of pesticides products (active substance, co-formulants and adjuvants), while pesticide products are often more toxic than the active substances (Mesnage and Antoniou 2018, SAPEA 2018). Thresholds for a few pesticide residues, metabolites have been part of the legislation of a few European countries (Carlon 2007), but mostly for currently banned and highly persistent pesticides (e.g. DDTs, HCHs, Atrazine). Furthermore, the lack of data on pesticide mixtures in soils, as well as data on the total load of diffuse contamination in soils, have prevented validation and improvement of current risk EU assessment of active substances, degradation of products and pesticides. The latter is currently based on prediction of environmental concentrations, based on recommended application rates. Only a few species are used in EU pesticide risk assessment. Research has pointed to the lack of field data and lack of information on mixture and cumulative effects on soil organisms, including non-standard and native species and communities, soil functioning and ecosystem services (Geissen et al. 2021).
As mentioned earlier, Silva et al. (2019) found that 80% and 58% of 317 soil samples across the EU contained respectively pesticides and mixtures of pesticides, with in total 166 different pesticide combinations. Silva et al. (2023) also measured pesticides in 201 soil samples in the framework of the H 2020 Sprint Project. They found 100 different pesticides, with the large majority (79%-99%) of samples containing mixtures of pesticides. Soils under organic farming mostly contained persistent, long-banned pesticides, while soils under conventional farming contained also recently banned and currently approved pesticides. The researchers conclude that non-approved compounds represent a significant part of the cocktails found, and should be accounted for in risk assessment. They also recommend re-evaluation of pesticides persistence. They point out that European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) risk assessment currently focuses on single active substances, standard ecotoxicological tests and modeling exercise, with a few standard organisms, endpoints and conditions.
Research shows that pesticide contamination extends to landscape level, far beyond farmland. E.g. Brühl et al. (2024) found widespread contamination of soils and vegetation with pesticides and Silva et al. (2023) found widespread contamination of soils, air, water, sediments and indoor dust. Also in nature reserves, insect communities are not safe from pesticide exposure (Brühl et al. 2021). Brühl and Zaller (2019) pointed out as well that long-term and cumulative effects of pesticide mixtures are not considered in the current risk assessment of EFSA. They highlight as well that indirect food web effects of pesticides are not considered: e.g. the reduction of flowers and hence of food sources of bees is not included in current risk assessment. In 2024, EFSA received two mandates from the EC to review the outdated risk assessment for plant protection products. An outline for the revision of the terrestrial ecotoxicology guidance document and for the development of an approach on indirect effects has been already published (EFSA 2025).
Honert et al. (2025) underline that current pesticide use is recognised as the largest deliberate input of bioactive substances into terrestrial ecosystems, and one of the main factors responsible for the current decline in insects in agricultural areas. Analysing 93 active substances in monthly soil and vegetation samples over a year, a total of 71 active substances were found, with up to 28 in single soil samples. The concentration in the topsoil remained almost constant year-round, and peaked in vegetation in summer. The authors call this particularly worrying, as adult insects are mainly active (in vegetation) in summer, and adult insects or larvae living in the soil are chronically exposed to several pesticides. They point out that the constant presence of pesticide mixtures is not part of the regulatory environmental risk assessment procedures for pesticide regulation. Mixtures are addressed only occasionally in formulated products with up to 4 active substances. Therefore, authorities are urged to ensure that chronic contamination of complex pesticide mixtures is incorporated in authorisation procedures and risk assessment. Additionally, given that large-scale contamination is expected throughout the year, and only a fraction of used active substances is analysed, the calculated risks are supposed to be even higher. The authors conclude that only reductions in pesticide risk can change the current observed declines in insects, and that even with refinements of, for example focusing on regulatory adjustments, a comprehensive EU strategy must be adopted to decrease overall pesticide use and transition toward ecological farming methods. (Brühl and Zaller 2019, Honert et al. 2025, Mauser et al. 2025).
The adverse effects of pesticides on beneficial soil fungi and earthworms and other soil macro- and microbiota were described by several authors (Pelosi et al. 2021, Riedo et al. 2021, Klátyik et al. 2023). Wan et al. (2025) reviewed 1705 studies, concluding that pesticides cause negative responses of growth, reproduction, behaviour and other physiological biomarkers for non-target plants, animals (invertebrates and vertebrates) and microorganisms (bacteria and fungi). Similar to other experts, the authors underline the need for better risk assessment, as risk assessment currently focuses on a limited number of easily cultured model species, and are therefore unlikely to capture the variety of responses to pesticide exposure seen across the diversity of species and communities found in both managed and natural systems. Therefore, there is a need of cross-taxa synthesis of pesticide effects, and for integrating long-term low-level exposure, cumulative effects at the landscape level and synergistic interactions between active ingredients.The authors suggest that post-licensing biodiversity monitoring could help address this problem, and conclude that unless changes occur, the hazard of severe, unexpected and long-term impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning will remain unacceptably high (Wan et al. 2025). Kotschik et al. (2024) and Pieper et al. (2023) also claimed for the feedback from monitoring results in regulation of chemicals.
Gandara et al. (2024) screened more than 1000 agrochemicals in a fruit fly model and found that the majority had behavioural effects at sublethal levels and even more compromised survival after acute exposure. When combining agrochemicals at field-realistic levels, the researchers found widespread changes to larval development, behaviour and reproduction.
Beaumelle et al. (2023) reviewed available data on the impact of pesticides on soil invertebrate communities, looking at abundance, biomass, richness and diversity of natural soil fauna communities across a wide range of environmental contexts. Their review shows that pesticides overall decreased the abundance and diversity of soil fauna communities, with more outspoken effects on diversity than on abundance. Scenarios with multiple substances, insecticides and broad-spectrum substances showed most detrimental effects. There was no evidence found that the effects of pesticides dampen over time: long-term and short-term studies showed similar effect sizes. The study found that pesticide use erodes a substantial part of global biodiversity, having significant detrimental non-target effects on soil biodiversity, and threatening the health of ecosystems. Gunstone et al. (2021) reviewed nearly 400 studies on effects of pesticides on non-target invertebrates which have egg, larval or immature development in the soil. The reviewed studies included unique species, taxa or combined taxa and different pesticide active ingredients or unique mixtures of active ingredients. Of the 2800 tested parameters, with each parameter representing a change in a specific endpoint after exposure of a specific organism to a specific pesticide, 70.5% of tested parameters showed negative effects, while 1.4% showed positive effects and 28.1% showed no significant effects. The authors conclude that all types of pesticides pose clear hazard to soil invertebrates, with evident effects for all studied classes of pesticides, in a wide variety of soil organisms and endpoints, and in both laboratory and field studies.
Franco et al. (2024) performed an evaluation of the ecological risk of pesticide residues from the European LUCAS Soil Monitoring 2018 survey, which assessed 118 pesticide residues in more than 3773 soil sites across whole Europe. The study presents two mixture indicators for soil based on the lowest and median of available No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) from publicly available toxicity datasets, to respond to the policy need to develop risk-based indicators for pesticides in the environment. The mixture risk indicator based on the NOECsoil,min which is currently used in the ERA of ppp exceeds 1 in 14% of the sites and 0.1 in 23%. The exceedance of 1, indicates a high risk for in-soil organisms due to analysed mixtures in soil samples. Across the 73 sites monitored in LUCAS 2015 and LUCAS 2018 both campaigns, the risk indicator increased slightly.
Undesirable effects on soil microbiota can now be well-documented using advanced and standardized molecular tools (Karpouzas et al. 2014a, Karpouzas et al. 2014b; Vasileiadis et al. 2018 Vischetti et al. 2020). However, at regulatory level obsolete low-resolution methods like the OECD 216 N transformation test are still in place to evaluate toxicity of pesticides on the soil microbiota (Karpouzas et al. 2022; Pedrinho et al. 2024).
Ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms (AOM), modulating nitrification in nitrogen cycling, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), obligate symbionts of most terrestrial plants, have been identified as potent bioindicators to assess the toxicity of pesticides on the soil microbiota (Karpouzas et al. 2016, Ockleford et al. 2017). New methods like amplicon sequencing in combination with tools like Species Sensitivity Distributions (SSDs) could be used to quantify effects of pesticides, although standardization of these approaches is still missing.
Shortcomings in risk assessment are also underlined by PAN Europe 2024, who highlights that the tests within the EU guidance document on ‘non-target’ arthropods are very limited and insensitive, allowing the mortality of as much as 50% of the population with the spraying of a single pesticide. They call for the need for independent (from business interest), transparent, science-based guidance documents to allow for the effective protection of the environment, including non-target arthropods.
Drift of pesticides, for example through runoff, the transport of pesticide residue attached to soil particles and volatilization from soils, is also described by many researchers as a danger to biodiversity (Albaseer et al. 2025). Drifting pesticides, find the authors, have profound impact on biodiversity, harming non-target plants, insects, fungi and other organisms both near application sites and in distant ecosystems. Pesticide drift has been linked to over 50% reductions in diversity of wild plants, within 500 m of fields.
Plastics are emerging and persistent contaminants whose relevance for soils was highlighted relatively recently (Nizetto et al. 2016). Weathering of plastics gives birth to micro-plastics (< 5 mm) which could impose adverse effects on the soil fauna (Huerta Lwanga et al. 2016, Quigley et al. 2024), affect soil structure and porosity and eventually impose undesirable effects on the soil microbiota (de Souza Machado et al. 2018). This could be assigned to additives that could diffuse from plastics in the soil matrix and have direct toxic effects on the soil microbiota (Zhu et al. 2022). Beyond that, the surface of plastic fragments constitutes a unique micro-niche for microbial colonization (called plastisphere) where other organic pollutants could adsorb and directly interact making plastisphere an arena of microbial interactions and rapid evolution (Rillig et al. 2024, Puglisi et al. 2019). The outcome of these interactions is only now starting to unravel with first evidence suggesting that plastics act as vectors of human pathogens and ARGs (Zhu et al. 2022), while their interactions with the other organic pollutants affect their dissipation (Lamprou et al. 2025). Recent evidence suggests that the co-occurrence of multiple stressors in soils could magnify the negative effects on the soil microbiota (Rillig et al. 2023), and that this aspect should be clearly considered in future studies. Further evidence also highlights potential detrimental effects on soil fauna and their associated gut microbiomes (Boughattas et al. 2024).
Another barrier in, especially, microplastic research is the fact that there are no standardized methodologies for the detection, quantification, and characterization of microplastics. This barrier makes it very difficult to compare different studies. Secondly, there is also a scarcity of long-term data on the fate, degradation, and potential accumulation of microplastics in soil ecosystems, particularly concerning their interactions with soil organisms and effects on ecosystem services. Microplastic transport through leaching represents another challenge. Finally, a difficulty that is often overlooked is that addressing the impact of microplastic pollution in soils requires collaboration across disciplines. This includes soil science, polymer chemistry and toxicology. However, limited interdisciplinary communication and data sharing can hamper comprehensive research efforts.
Veterinary medicines such as antibiotics and anthelmintics, end up in soil either directly through faeces deposition of grazing animals (grasslands) or manuring of agricultural soils (Fernández et al. 2011, Fang et al. 2023). Navrátilová et al. 2021Udikovic-Kolic et al. 2014 Besides that, the presence of antibiotics and anthelmintics in soils have been associated with strong adverse effects on the soil microbiota and particularly on AOM (Lagos et al. 2023, Lagos and Karpouzas 2023) and AMF (Gkimprixi et al. 2023) with reciprocal effects on soil fertility and plant productivity.
Despite extensive gaps remaining, metals are among the pollutants for which already more information is available regarding their effects on biodiversity. For example, metals and metalloids can impact microbial communities in soil, and impact different processes, such as carbon storage and cycling (Azarbad et al. 2015, Vieira et al. 2024). Faggioli et al. (2019), showed that Pb contamination can decrease abundance and richness of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. Important is also that the use of fertilizers can introduce heavy metals and other soil pollutants (Mantovi et al. 2003). Tőzsér et al. (2019) found that ground beetles can indicate extreme soil metal pollution.
Excess nutrients have an important impact on soil, water bodies, biodiversity and overall ecosystem functioning. Particularly nitrogen and phosphorus can transport to surface water bodies and groundwater, leading to eutrophication, loss of biodiversity, and oxygen-depleted waters (Lundin and Nilsson 2021). E.g. mycorrhizal fungi, essential for many soil functions and services, are negatively affected by excessive nutrients (Origiazzi 2016). Excess nitrogen also contributes to air pollution, with deposition of nitrogen one of the main driver of loss in plant biodiversity (Bobbink et al. 2010). Moreover, excess nitrogen in soil can cause increased emission of N2O, an important GHG. (McDonald et al. 2021, Pan et al. 2022).
More than 70% of ecosystem area in the EU is at risk of eutrophiciation due to excess nitrogen deposition (EEA 2024). In the EU+UK, a worrying 74% of agricultural area receives excessive nitrogen inputs. Large areas also face surpluses of phosphorus. The primary cause is fertiliser and manure application, livestock density and soil degradation (erosion and leaching) in agriculture (European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024, European Environment Agency 2018, European Environment Agency 2019, Velthof et al. 2011).
This surplus of nitrogen in soil leads to an acceleration of microbial nitrification that further stimulates emissions of nitrous oxide, a highly potent greenhouse gas (GHG), and contamination of groundwater via nitrate leaching (Kuypers et al. 2018). Also, phosphorus has accumulated in agricultural soils in Europe, after the introduction of phosphorus-containing fertilizers in addition to manure. Manure can also be a source of antibiotics from veterinary medicines (Antikainen et al. 2008, Panagos et al. 2022b). Since the 1950s, the increased use of fertilisers has increased crop production. In India total grain production in 1995 was reached by 57 % more fertilizers than used in 1950 (Majumdar et al. 2016). However, their excessive and inefficient use has led to nutrient excesses and losses. The same has been experienced in the EU (European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024). The negative long-term effects on soil, water, biodiversity and human health have been ignored for a long-time. It has been argued that excess use of nitrogen may even have a countereffect on yield due to its negative impact on soil properties, soil life (Rodríguez-Eugenio et al. 2018) resulting in lower income to farm.
Emerging contaminants and ‘forever-chemicals’
Specific knowledge gaps are related to the lack of knowledge on the presence and therefore also of the effects of emerging contaminants on soil biodiversity and ecosystem services. Also, PFAS or ‘forever-chemicals’ are important soil pollutants, and characterized by specific concerns, due to their highly persistent nature, widespread use and toxicity at low concentrations (Brunn 2023, European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024). Ultrashort-chain PFAS such as Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), irreversibly accumulating in different matrices across the EU, are described by researchers as a global threat, due to their important environmental and health concerns (Arp et al. 2024).
Impact on Soil Ecosystems and Functions, and Modelling
Soil pollution leads to impairments in ecosystem structure and functions (carbon transformations, nutrient cycling, maintenance of the structure and regulation of biological populations). Mining, agriculture, forestry and waste disposal jeopardize the functional biodiversity compartment of the ecosystem, which will also lead to destruction of the provision of goods and ecosystem services (Morgado et al. 2018).
Although some studies have carried out economical assessments of e.g. the impact of agriculture on the environment (Kurth et al. 2019), the environmental externalities of soil pollution have not been fully assessed across Europe. Likewise, benefits of decreasing soil pollution and positive impacts of restoring soil health on biodiversity and ecosystem services, including long-term, sustainable production of food, have not been comprehensively included in current evaluation assessments, including in existing models. For example, models assessing the impact of reducing pesticides often do not consider the medium- and long-term positive impacts regarding crop production which would result from soil restoration and enhancement of ecosystem services, such as increased pollination, natural pest control and protection against erosion.
The impact of soil pollution reaches far beyond soil ecosystems. The interlinkages of soil pollution with air and water pollution on the one hand, and the impact of soil pollution on wider ecosystems, beyond soils on the other hand, are also among the 10 identified priority knowledge gaps, which are further discussed.
Actions
Ambitiously enhance systematic monitoring of soil pollution, to fill in the extensive gaps on presence of pollutants in soils,
Include in environmental risk-assessment long-term, low-level, chronic, cocktail/mixtures and cumulative/synergistic effects, feedback monitoring results in the authorisation of chemicals, as well as the indirect impacts, and impacts on landscape-level and ecosystem functioning/services, to integratively assess the impact on soil biodiversity and ecosystem services,
Include all relevant studies in risk assessment, and ensure transparency,
Research/action on prevention and remediation of soil pollution, e.g. transitioning to ecological farming methods and investing in nature-based solutions,
Include impact of soil pollution on ecosystem functioning/services in modelling to support policy making decisions.
Enhanced research on individual substances (presence and interactions in soil, transport and fate, mobility and persistence, ecotoxicological properties, bioaccumulation and bioavailability, exposure of and risk to the environment)
Bottlenecks
The high complexity of soil and interactions of soil compounds, organisms and contaminants hinders the assessment of the full impact of soil pollution on the delivery of ecosystem services.
Lack of systemized monitoring, and limited capacity leads to data gaps which hinder the determination of the level and spatial extent of pollutants in EU soils, both for point-source and diffuse pollution.
Various and varying attitudes and, perceptions of actors involved in soil pollution hinder directing and attributing needed means and efforts to the identification and the assessment of the impact of soil pollutants and the extent of soil pollution.
3.1.2 Socio-economic and market tools to prevent soil pollution and their fitness-for-purpose
Summary of the Knowledge Gap (Knowledge Gap 2)
While the relationship between prevention of soil pollution and socioeconomic issues is two-fold, there is lack of a comprehensive framework and corresponding tools to tackle it. There is a need for developing tools that are capable of addressing and reflecting both sides of the coin and can simultaneously take into account their specific socioeconomic issues, and conflicting nature. There is no framework that addresses, on the one hand, the question of which socioeconomic changes and market tools can prevent soil pollution, and, on the other hand, how prevention of soil pollution changes those socioeconomic issues, while considering temporal and spatial context. In the first case, the focus is on the polluter and the polluting activity. In the second case, those who are exposed to soil pollution and its consequences are the focal point. In both cases, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the relationship between the socioeconomic status of the population and the impact of soil pollution/prevention on that status. There is a need for an analytical framework for the review of the underpinning factors of the negative impacts of pollution and prevention, addressing what levers can be activated for turning around those impacts, what kind of new tools have to be developed, and how existing tools could be applied and/or adapted to reach the EU's goals related to soil health.
State of the Art
Socio-economic and market tools reflect the European social and economic model. As stated in the report of the working group “social and economic model”, the European model is depicted by principles (solidarity and cohesion) and common values (freedom, equality, social justice, dialogue, respect for human rights based on equality among member states) that determine the model’s characteristics and lay down the bases for sustainable development. While the European economy is a market economy, the principles of the model require that “economic growth must serve to boost overall social wellbeing, and not take place at the expense of any section of society, especially young people” (EC working group 2007). The adjective “socioeconomic” used in various terms describing status, development, growth etc. is always a reflection of the European model and should be interpreted in that context.
A large number of scientific papers exist acknowledging, describing and elaborating on the negative impacts of soil pollution on soil health, soils functions/ecosystem services and human health and addressing socio-economic impacts, and market tools, market failures and the need to change the regulatory framework. They are reflected in policy papers and reports (FAO 2015, FAO 2018, FAO 2020, FAO 2024b, UNEP and FAO 2021, UNEP et al. 2013, European Environment Agency et al. 2024, European Environment Agency 2019, European Environment Agency 2018, EEA 2022a, EEA 2022b, EEA 2023a, EEA 2019) OECD publications could become guidelines in assessing and developing tools and in evaluating their fitness-for-purpose (OECD 2008, OECD 2012, OECD 2020, OECD 2021, OECD 2023a, OECD 2023b, OECD 2024).
The structure and the logic of those papers can fit into the DPSIR model widely used by the EEA for analysing environmental issues (Stanners et al. 2007). Many of them assess the state of soil (S), identify pressures (P), and impact (I) and look for drivers (D), before calling for policy changes (Response – R). Based on this model, a complex response needs to be developed addressing all elements of the DPSIR model in order to mitigate or cease pressures resulting in a decreased or even zero negative impact.
As part of the SOLO project, drivers relevant to soil mission objectives were summarized. (Chowdhury et al. 2024) In the study, six categories of drivers were identified: 1. technology and management, 2. demography, 3. policy and institutional arrangements, 4. economy, 5. nature and environment, 6. socio-cultural context regarding four land uses (nature, urban, agriculture, forest). For all categories, the relevance of the drivers was assessed, identifying whether they are relevant everywhere, within the EU, or within a specific region or member state. Out of the 451 studies, 82 were related to soil pollution (agriculture 52, nature 16, urban 11, forest 3). There are significant differences in the data on soil pollution drivers for the different land use categories, the ranking corresponding to the number of studies. The site specificity of soil health and soil pollution issues could be underestimated since more than half of the agriculture and nature drivers’ relevance was indicated at member state level only. Another review study on drivers identified four main groups related to human activities (1. industry and mining, 2. urban areas and transport, 3. agriculture, 4. hazards and military activities) as the main sources of pollution. It pointed out, that the reviewed studies adhered different importance to pollutants based on land use (Vieira et al. 2024).
In 2002 the EC published a Communication (European Commission 2002) on the impact assessment to improve policy quality and coherence by simultaneously giving consideration to economic, social and environmental issues. The EC gave examples of impacts which should be reviewed during the impact assessment process. The economic impacts included macro- and micro-economic impacts relevant to economic growth, competitiveness, compliance costs (including implementation costs for public authorities), innovation and technological development, investments, market shares, trends in consumer prices. Social impact examples referred to various human rights, employment, health and safety issues, consumer rights, social capital, security, education, training and culture and their distributional effects on income at different levels (sector, groups, workers, consumers). Examples of environmental impacts linked the negative and positive impacts to changes in the status of the environment manifested in climate change, air, water and soil pollution, land-use change, biodiversity loss, and decrease in public health (European Commission 2002).
The need to assess and evaluate socioeconomic factors and impacts of projects, and to foster socioeconomic development, have been key issues for decades. In 2002, the socioeconomic tools for sustainability impact assessment were summarized (Tamborra 2002). The Summary’s aim was to provide tools for assessing the economic, social and environmental impacts of a regulatory approach in order to promote sustainable development. The main two objectives were the integration of economic and ecological dimensions by developing integrated models and finding ways to show the value of health and environmental damage in monetary terms, thus assessing those external costs of human activities. Socio-economic survey tools (Liswanti et al. 2012) could become important source of information on the socio-economic status of stakeholders and their interest in prevention of soil pollution and remediation. The integration of the various aspects is challenging especially regarding agriculture, where the diversity of the natural, environmental, historical, social, cultural, economic factors among the member states is significant (Andrejovská and Glova 2022). While Darnhofer et al. (2010) argue that resilience thinking can integrate ecological, economic and social aspects into farming systems, D'Adamo et al. (2020) emphasise the challenges in taking all three into consideration when developing the new socio-economic indicator for bioeconomy sectors. They underline that the lack of relevant environmental data was the reason why the environmental aspects could only be integrated in the future. It would be important to review whether the new socioeconomic indicator could be used and further developed to tackle the issues regarding prevention of soil pollution and/or remedation.
The need to assess the socioeconomic impact has been part of the earlier and recent Horizon project calls, and evaluation (EC DG R&I 2017, European Commission 2018). The calls refer to different socioeconomic aspects, however, they do not necessarily specify which factors, nor which status, to consider.
In 2018 the EC published a document (European Commission 2018) to help the assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts of Europe’s R&D program. The guide refers to the use of the Nemesis model (EC JRC 2020). The Nemesis model (a macro-sectoral model with a recursive dynamics) is a decision support tool, helping to make a choice between different policies taking into consideration management, budget and design issues. (European Commission 2018, Akcigit et al. 2022).
The European Commission regularly reviews the implementation, the results and the impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy by applying the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) (EC DG for Agriculture and Rural Development 2015, European Commission DG Rural Development 2017). CMEF provides indicators (output, result, impact, context indicators) evaluating the implementation against the set objectives of the programme.
In 2023 FAO introduced the concept of true cost accounting (TCA) (FAO 2023). By definition TCA is “A holistic and systemic approach to measuring and valuing the environmental, social, health and economic costs and benefits generated by agrifood systems to facilitate improved decisions by policymakers, businesses, farmers, investors and consumers.” TCA helps to uncover hidden costs along the agrifood system and provides a guide for transformation. Hidden cost is defined as “Any cost to individuals or society that is not reflected in the market price of a product or service. It refers to external costs (that is, a negative externality) or economic losses triggered by other market, institutional or policy failures.” However, hidden costs do not cover all costs relevant to soil pollution and remediation. While costs associated with pollution (as one of the land degradations), or pesticide exposure was omitted, costs of land-use change and nitrogen emissions were included. In that respect it is important to note that on the one hand, both control of nitrogen emission and land-use changes are part of the pollution prevention tools. On the other hand, the omission of the costs was justified not by the inadequacy of the assessment, but rather by data gaps (lack of global datasets, models for estimating cross-country hidden costs), or by intangible values that cannot be monetized. In 2024, consideration was given to improve the assessment of TCA by integrating the pollution costs of pesticide use into the hidden costs (Lord 2024, FAO 2024a).
The above means that if the limitation of data gaps is overcome the TCA assessment could become a valuable method for identifying hidden socioeconomic costs caused by soil pollution (land degradation) not only in relation to the agrifood system but to other sectors as well. During the TCA assessment process the following levers are reviewed: trade and market interventions, (de)coupled subsidies, general services support, laws and regulations behavioural policies, private capital, voluntary standards. All of them are relevant from the point of pollution and its prevention.
FAO has reviewed the hidden costs in 154 countries. Data for all EU member states (except Cyprus, Luxemburg and Malta) are published in the report. It underlines the diversity of member states, and how TCA assessment made at national level allows country specific conditions (soil health relevant, economic, social, cultural conditions, availability of data) to be taken into account. That is crucial for policy design at national and EU level, as implied often in scientific papers.
Pollution prevention requires transformation of all sources and causes (human activities, market, institutional and policy failures) leading to pollution. Prevention transforms the socioeconomic status of the beneficiaries associated with pollution and the negatively affected stakeholders depending on the principles used (polluter pays or beneficiary pays principle in context with fairness and distributional justice), the method of prevention, for example pesticides substituted by weeding robots, changing land management, soft or hard regulation (Banerjee et al. 2021, Congiu and Moscati 2022), to name but a few. There are several studies analysing these complex issues (Rickert 2004)
Actions
Research addressing the intertwined nature of stakeholders’ socioeconomic relationships and the effect of country specific cultural and historical backgrounds relevant to institutional, market, or policy setups and failures in the context of pollution prevention and the need for behavioural change,
Comprehensive, consistent and comparative research of the existing tools on socioeconomic issues, how both sides are affected by prevention, and how to fill data gaps,
Further development and improvement of the tools,
Testing the tools including the test of the TCA assessment in member states with contrasting levels of data to see how it performs under different circumstances,
Making the socioeconomic impact of soil pollution and its prevention on the beneficiaries and on the negatively affected more transparent and to highlight trade-offs,
Data collection on the socio-economic status of the exposed and the polluters, and the impact of the preventive measures on those statuses.
Bottlenecks
Limited acknowledgement and understanding of the intertwined nature of stakeholders’ (polluters and exposed to pollution) socioeconimic relationships hinder further development and improvement of the tools, and the identification of trade-offs.
Lack of cultural context hinders consistent data collection and comparison of data, and to develop adequate tools for addressing socioeconomic issues stemming from soil pollution prevention and remediations.
Sector-specific approaches hinder the development of an overarching, comprehensive and consistent framework for soil pollution prevention and remediation.
3.1.3 Impact of soil pollutants (individual and mixtures, short-term and long-term) on human Health
Summary of the Knowledge Gap (Knowledge Gap 3)
Available research clearly shows that soil pollution poses severe risks to human health. People are throughout their life exposed to soil pollutants through different routes. The measure of all the exposures throughout a lifetime is referred to as "the exposome". Drinking water and food contamination, transport of pollutants via dust to places frequented by people (paths, playgrounds, houses, gardens), ingestion/inhalation of soil particles and dermal exposure are important exposure pathways through which soil pollution can impact human health. Analogous to the research gaps regarding the assessment of the impact of pesticides on the environment, the complete impact of total soil pollution exposure through all exposure routes, taking into account mixture and cumulative effects, chronic low-level exposure, throughout a lifetime (the ‘exposome’), on human health remains currently unclear. For example, current risk assessment focuses mostly on e.g. pesticide exposure through food ingestion, while experts point out that exposure via air and skin are important routes of exposure, which are currently not adequately assessed.
State of the Art
A variety of studies have shown the impact of soil pollution on human health. Drinking water and food contamination, transport of pollutants via dust to places frequented by people (paths, playgrounds, houses, gardens, etc.), ingestion/inhalation of soil particles and dermal exposure (Marin Villegas et al. 2019,Chaparro Leal et al. 2018, Govarts et al. 2023) are important exposure pathways through which soil pollution can impact human health. Among the chemicals or groups of chemicals of major public health concern identified by the WHO are Cd, Pb, Hg, dioxin and dioxin-like substances and highly hazardous pesticides, of which residues are transported from polluted soils to food and water bodies. Also pathogens present in soil may contaminate food, with human health risks (e.g. diarrhea, cancers). Health aspects related to soil pollution vary according to land use (e.g. urban soils are characterised by specific problems and challenges, given the concentration of anthropogenic activities concentrated there, and the high population density). Münzel et al. (2024) underline the links between soil and water pollution, and cardiovascular disease. Robust evidence has shown the links between multiple pollutants, such as pesticides, heavy metals, dioxins and toxic synthetic chemicals to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while some data also suggest an association between micro- and nanoplasic particles and cariodvascular disease. The authors point out that soil pollution diminishes soil's capacity to produce food, causing crop impurities, malnutrition and disease.
People living in areas with a higher concentration of metals and metalloids in soil are linked to the aetiology of some forms of cancer, increased incidence of mental disorder and all-cause cardiovascular diseases mortality (Vieira et al. 2024, European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024, Núñez et al. 2017,Ayuso-Álvarez et al. 2019,Ayuso-Álvarez et al. 2022). Higher rates of lung cancer mortality was found in regions with higher concentrations of cadmium or arsenic (Bartnicka et al. 2023). For some locations, this was supported by increased regional mortality rates caused by cancer types associated with these pollutants (Parviainen et al. 2022). An identified knowledge gap underlined in European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. (2024) is that most of the identified studies use the total amount of a given pollutant in soil, rather than considering the bioavailable fraction (Hemphill et al. 1991, Zhao et al. 2020). The uptake of metals by plants may pose significant risks to human health.
Research projects show widespread pesticide contamination in soils, air, waterways, indoor dust, animals and humans. However, systematic monitoring data of pesticide residues are not available. A large body of research shows the links between pesticide exposure and a variety of health impacts. Pesticide exposure has been linked to various types of cancers (non hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, kidney and bladder cancer, soft tissue sarcomas, hodgkin's disease, testis cancer, melanoma), respiratory diseases (e.g. asthma), neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer's disease), anxiety/depression, thyroid diseases, developmental delays in children and cognitive imparements, cardiovascular diseases, infertility of birth malformations, weakening of immune system and negative impacts on the gut microbiome (Bretveld et al. 2006, Inserm 2021, Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al. 2016, Abou Diwan et al. 2023, Farr et al. 2004, Figueiredo et al. 2021, Gama et al. 2022, Doğanlar et al. 2018, Panzacchi 2025). Certain illnesses, such as types of cancer (in France) and Parkinson's disease (In France, Italy and Germany), have been listed as occupational diseases, due to their high prevalence among farmers and farmworkers (Shan et al. 2023, Bloem and Boonstra 2023, Adhikari and Hartemink 2016, Inserm 2021). Silva et al. (2023) found that 64%, 66% and 76% of pesticide residues found in, respectively, crops, indoor dust and air samples, are linked to adverse human health effects. They found 43% and over 49% of residues in indoor dust and air samples have been linked to highly severe effects (e.g. carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive/development effects). Similarly to the shortcomings in pesticide risk assessment for the environment, pesticide risk assessment for human health is characterised by extensive shortcomings. Mostly only uptake of pesticides through food is monitored, while exposure routes such as inhalation and uptake through the skin are not, or not well assessed. The uptake through food is underestimating real risks to consumers by not accounting for mixtures. In addition, Hernández et al. (2013)highlighted that the synergistic and mixture effects of pesticides, and the long-term exposure of (low-level) concentrations, are not taken into account in current risk assessment. Co-formulants, which are added to pesticide products, are not assessed. Moreover, different health impacts such as neurological impacts and endocrine disrupting impacts are not adequately, or not, assessed (Bloem and Boonstra 2023). Comprehensive assessments, covering toxicity effects of pesticide mixtures and cumulative effects, long-term low-level exposure, indirect effects, and spatial analysis of long-term pesticide exposure and prevalence of specific health impacts in Europe are needed to assess these impacts further.
Excessive nutrients in soils are linked to important human health risks. For example, nitrogen emission contributes to the development of aerosol and particulate matter air pollutants, impacting human health (European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024, Pozzer et al. 2017). Also indirectly, excess nutrients in soil affect human health, through compromising drinking water (Lundin and Nilsson 2021).
It is well documented that the soil deposition of veterinary medicines such as antibiotics and anthelmintics could raises health concerns associated with their plant uptake and translocation to edible plant parts entering the food chain (Navrátilová et al. 2021), and the environmental dispersal of antibiotic resistance genes (Udikovic-Kolic et al. 2014).
Analogous to the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, the impacts of soil pollution on human health reach far beyond polluted soils. The widespread drift of soil pollution leads to pollution of water resources (groundwater, drinking water, surface water, the marine environment), to air and indoors (e.g. in houses, schools). Soil pollution leads to the degradation of ecosystem services, with far-reaching impacts on human health. For example, by negatively impacting soil invertebrates and soil microbial communities, pesticide and metal pollution impact carbon cycling and storage (Gunstone et al. 2021,Azarbad et al. 2015,Faggioli et al. 2019). Micro- and nanoplastics also have negative effects on soil properties, with their degradation leading to the release of other contaminants, which can affect soil organisms and plant growth, and accumulate in the food chain (European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024). The impact of soil pollution on human health is therefore multi-faceted, as soil pollution not only poses direct health risk due to e.g. dermal absorption, ingestion and inhalation, but also undermines food- and water quality and ecosystem services, holding important risks for food security (Morgado et al. 2018, European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024).
Persistent organic pollutants in soils impact human health (van den Berg et al. 2017). Also, uptake of PAHs through contaminated food is associated with a suspected carcinogenic risk.
Concluding, available research clearly shows that soil pollution poses severe risks to human health. People are throughout their life exposed to soil pollutants and other pollutants through different routes. The measure of all the exposures throughout a lifetime is referred to as "the exposome". Dr. Christopher Wild defined the exposome in 2005 as "every exposure to which an individual is subjected from conception to death" (Westmark 2023). The exposome can be highly variable and evolves throughout the lifespan. Understanding how the exposure to different environmental pollutants throughout a lifetime, including soil pollution, impact human health, is key and represents a major knowledge gap. Drinking water and food contamination, transport of pollutants via dust to places frequented by people (paths, playgrounds, houses, gardens), ingestion/inhalation of soil particles and dermal exposure are important exposure pathways through which soil pollution can impact human health. Analogous to the research gaps regarding the assessment of the impact of pesticides on the environment, the complete impact of total soil pollution exposure through all exposure routes, taking into account mixture and cumulative effects, chronic low-level exposure throughout a lifetime (the ‘exposome’) on human health remains currently unclear. For example, current risk assessment focuses mostly on e.g. pesticide exposure through food ingestion, while experts point out that exposure via air and skin are important routes of exposure, which are currently not adequately assessed.
Actions
Ambitiously enhance systematic monitoring of soil pollution, to fill in the extensive gaps on presence of pollutants in soils affecting human health,
Include in human health risk-assessment long-term, low-level, chronic, cocktail/mixtures and cumulative/synergistic effects (exposure to multicontaminants), as well as the indirect impacts though the impacts on e.g. ecosystem functioning/services, to integratively assess the impact on human health. Include the ‘Exposome’ in risk assessment,
Include all relevant studies in risk assessment, and ensure transparency,
Research/action on prevention and remediation of soil pollution, e.g. transitioning to ecological farming methods and investing in nature-based solutions,
Include impact of soil pollution on human health, on ecosystem services, in modelling to support policy making decisions,
Data collection and analysis of individual substances on human health (exposure routes, toxicological properties, the exposome).
Bottlenecks
The high complexity of soil pollutant mixtures and (indirect) effects on human health hinders systematic monitoring and health-risk assessment,
Lack of systemized monitoring, and limited capacity leads to data gaps which hinder the determination of the level and spatial extent of pollutants in EU soils, both for point-source and diffuse pollution affecting human health,
The various and varying attitudes and perceptions of actors involved in soil pollution hinder the directing and attributing needed means and efforts to the assessment of the impact of soil pollution on human health and the development and application of preventive measures and remediation practices.
3.2 Other prioritized Knowledge Gaps
This subsection describes the other 7 prioritized knowledge gaps, which were identified as part of the 10 priority knowledge gaps, next to the 3 key knowledge gaps described above.
3.2.1 (Knowledge gap 4) - Data gaps on soil pollution and lack of systemized monitoring
Summary of the Knowledge Gap
Despite the extensive knowledge on pollutants and their impacts, a clear lack of data on soil pollution still exists. It is linked to a lack of data on soil pollution and systemized monitoring frameworks, which are needed to assess the scope and possible impacts of soil pollution, and to develop management and policy tools.
State of the Art
There are several ways to gather data, including monitoring systems. There are high-resolution on targeted areas (e.g. industrial areas), and low-resolution of general purpose monitoring schemes. While general monitoring schemes like EU's LUCAS and GEMAS have contributed to soil pollution data, specifically on metals and pesticides, the full extent of most soil pollutants remains unknown. This includes newly emerging contaminants, and their possible (future) impact on soil functioning. Data and monitoring of key groups of soil pollutants (e.g. pesticides, pharmaceuticals, biocides, metals, PCBs, PAHs, TPHs, PFAS, micro- and nano plastics, pollutants in sewage sludge and relevant metabolites/byproducts) is key to assess soil pollution levels and risks, and monitor management strategies to achieve healthy soils. For many substances, there is a lack of widely accepted determination/quantification methods in soils and soil organisms. Challenges include associated risks, comparability and error determination.
There is much diversity and complexity in the monitoring of different pollutants. Micro- and nano-plastics, as well as many emerging pollutants, are challenging to monitor. Although prioritization approaches and practical feasibility are prerequisites for effective gathering of data and monitoring, it is overall essential to monitor as many soil components/contaminants as possible. Materials that are currently not considered pollutants, could pose extensive problems in the future.
Past experience has shown a long delay between substances ending up in soils and the realisation of their negative impacts, resulting in far-reaching, long-term challenges for ecosystems, their services and human health. Currently, there is a lack of understanding of the scope of contaminants/pollutants, including newly emerging contaminants, and their possible (future) impact on soil functioning. Large data gaps exist regarding the presence of emerging pollutants (e.g. pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, hormones, micropollutants (e.g. microplastics) in soils, their behaviour in the environment and their toxicity, transport and bioaccumulation properties in humans. Available research shows that emerging pollutants can raise pollutants of concern, involving high risks for the environment and human health (Vieira et al. 2024, Rodríguez-Eugenio et al. 2018, Covaci et al. 2011). Enhancing and implementing methodologies to measure and predict the presence and impact of newly emerging contaminants are needed.
Data gap issuses are relevant to all types of land uses. Urban soil pollution has been documented through several cases, but has been overall poorly studied. Urban soil pollution is associated with specific challenges related to among other issues, human health (Guillén et al. 2022), water quality (e.g. groundwater pollution OECD 2023b) and risks for pollution of surrounding regions (Liu et al. 2023). Insights in the full impact of urban soil pollution are lacking, as well as clear frameworks and initiatives to tackle urban soil pollution.
Actions
Review and comparative analysis of EU and national data on soil pollutions (existing and emerging pollutants),
Review of methodologies, and monitoring systems aimed at identifying site specificities (abiotic and biotic conditions), and shedding light on member state's priorities, economic, institutional, and regulatory constraints/ limitations,
Development of a monitoring framework and harmonisation of member states methodologies without affecting member states' interest and priorities by the standardization,
Establishment of an open access database with risk relevance on emerging pollutants to promote well-informed decision-making.
Bottleneck
Lack of standardised monitoring frameworks and methodologies for measuring pollutants hinders comparative analysis at EU level, the establishment and operation of consistent databases, robust risk assessment and well-informed decision-making.
High costs and institutional barriers hinder development of monitoring frameworks, harmonisation and comparative analysis.
3.2.2 (Knowledge Gap 5) - Technical/practical tools to remediate soil pollution and restore soils
Summary of the Knowledge Gap
There is need for further development of remediation and restoration techniques, and for further knowledge on how traditional and alternative tools can be effectively and efficiently combined to meet set soil health targets for current and future potential land use. An important aspect is that legislation does not take into account all soil pollution and associated risks, leading to a lack of focus on remediation techniques which focus on tackling pollutant mixtures and emerging pollutants and on restoration. In practice, laboratory analytical programs often provide analysis only for those pollutants listed in the legislation. In this regard, there is a lack of a readily available open access database on new/state-of-the-art techniques/protocols, and new emerging pollutants, in order to support everyday decision-making on remediation.
State of the Art
Chemicals or mixtures of chemicals released into the environment - including soil pollutants - pose an actual risk to soil functions and also to ecological and human receptors. Currently, technical/practical tools have been developed in the light of risk-based land management strategies and the corresponding risk-based soil screening values (risk-based SSV) reflecting on the potential function and future use of the land after remediation (EEA 2023a). There has been a significant shift in remediation technologies and removal of pollutants from soil. Traditional remediation practices (physicochemical technologies) are substituted or combined with alternative techniques (Phang et al. 2024), such as addressing management practices, crop use and the use of microbial technologies. However, there is a need for further research and development to improve remediation effectiveness. Methods include phytoremediation, phytoextraction, phytostabiliziation, phytovolatization, phytodegradation (Sharma et al. 2023) phytomanagement (Evangelou et al. 2015), bioremediation (Sales da Silva et al. 2020, Jiang et al. 2022) and vermiremediation (Xiao et al. 2022).
Specific challenges are associated with soils contaminated with multiple pollutants. The interaction between organic and inorganic pollutants can change bioavailabity and solubility of pollutants and their biotoxicity and biological metabolic processes. (Vieira et al. 2024). For pollutants that are relatively new to the environment, such as PFAS, important challenges remain due to unknown pathways of degradation. Also, competition or joint adsorption on binding sites poses a challenge. For mixed contaminated soils, successful combinations of physicochemical and biological remediation techniques have been discussed, and the positive synergistic impact underlined, however, more research is needed (Aparicio et al. 2022, Lacalle et al. 2020). Microbial technologies carry great potential, however, still need further development regarding increasing efficiency. The process is highly time consuming, which is considered a significant bottleneck in the field of bioremediation. More research is needed on the potential of nature-based solutions and the use of microorganisms for bioremediation processes.
As stakeholders highlighted, the daily practice in the investigation and assessment of impacts uses a set of tools to evaluate the actual risks posed by contaminants or combinations of chemicals. These tools include different threshold-limit values for organic and inorganic chemicals, and also numerical models for qualitative risk assessment processes in order to evaluate the actual risks of the impacts. The practical application of this evaluation and assessment framework needs clear and sound scientific background as a basis for the evaluation and assessment of the rate and risk of the impacts. In practice, the list of recognized contaminants is amended regularly with compounds that were not recognized as priority pollutants or were not focused on before - such the PFAS-PFOS compounds. Typically, laboratory analytical programs of environmental assessments (both for soil or for groundwater) include those compounds that are listed in the relevant legislation. In this way, it may easily happen that samples contain chemicals which are of potential concern remain under the radar, if those chemicals are not yet taken up in legislations. This may lead to wrong conclusions when evaluating the results.
A similar example is soil gas as an environmental indicator or element. Many organic compounds, once released into the soil, tend to evaporate into the soil gas above the groundwater level - in the so-called unsaturated zone. These vapours may affect the multifunctional properties of the top fertile layers of the soil and may also pose a human health risk if migrating into confined spaces like cellars or houses. In many cases this type of risk is leading to the need of an engineering intervention. Yet, soil gas is not even mentioned in many countries in the relevant legislation, as a factor to be monitored or considered. In general, more research is needed to improve efficiency, feasibility, costs and time efficiency of remediation techniques for a variety of different contaminants and soil conditions.
Actions
Research on the effect of mixtures and emerging pollutants,
Research on the further development of remediation techniques
Research on how to improve efficiency and effectiveness of alternative, nature-based techniques, including the review of how traditional and alternative methods could be combined,
Review and comparative analysis of economic, institutional and policy framework of remediations and the technical solutions,
Development and introduction of a coordinated mechanism and a task on national and EU level to establish and maintain an open access database with a regular update of scientific research to support the everyday decisions on remediation,
Review of the laboratory protocols and develop a procedure on how to update them for emerging pollutants.
Bottleneck
Nature-based solutions are often time-consuming which hinders their further development and application, as well as the development and uptake of nature-based solutions in combination with traditional methods and techniques.
Limited market interest for alternative remediations solutions hinders research and development of alternative methods.
Outdated laboratory practices hinder the adoption of new techniques and the assessment of the effect of pollutant mixtures and emerging pollutants.
3.2.3 (Knowledge Gap 6) - Behaviour/transportation and fate of soil pollutants and link of soil pollution with water and air
Summary of the Knowledge Gap
Soil pollution contributes to water and air pollution, and pollutants transported by air and water can cause soil pollution, particularly diffuse pollution. Extensive knowledge gaps exist concerning the partitioning of pollutants in different physical phases, and the behaviour, transportation and fate of many soil pollutants in soil, water and air. These three compartments need to be adequately assessed to evaluate (the impact of) diffuse soil pollution, demanding complex analysis.
State of the Art
Soil pollution is a major cause of groundwater and surface water contamination. Identified pathways from farm lands include: erosion and water body siltation, runoff contaminated with fresh manure, fertilizers or pesticides, and saline irrigation drainage water affecting downstream ecology, nitrogen and phosphorus overuse (Drechsel et al. 2023).
In urban areas, solid municipal waste dumps pose a threat to groundwater with a significant negative effect on the socioeconomic status of people residing nearby the dumpsites (Parameswari et al. 2012). NOx soil emissions can have important impacts on air quality (European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024). Local pollution (e.g. contaminated sites) is, via transportation processes, also often linked to diffuse pollution. The analysis of contaminated soil samples of 112 ecosystems across the globe (including Antarctica), comparing the contamination level between urban greenspaces and nearby natural sites, proved the transportation of soil pollutants and its global effect (Liu et al. 2023). At the same time, pollutants found in water bodies and in the air can be transported to soils, through precipitation or deposition processes. The interlinkages of the different matrices entail important consequences for management of pollution. For example, when groundwater is contaminated, the costs and complexity of bioremediation of soils are also greatly increased. In addition, insufficient knowledge of bioaccumulation and bioavailability of soil pollutants limits our understanding of associated risks. Accumulation of contaminants in one soil organism (e.g. earthworm) can be transferred through the soil foodweb to other trophic levels and reach aboveground organisms (e.g. birds) (FAO and UNEP 2021) The soil polluting human activity (the pollutant used, the timing and the conditions of the application of the pollutant) has an impact on the behaviour, transport and fate of soil pollutants, through its effects on soil functions, and influenced by the abiotic and biotic conditions of the specific site.
Processes of transportation (e.g. wind erosion) and air-water-soil interactions are highly dependent on soil characteristics and climatic conditions. This knowledge is essential for preventing pollution. The integration of such knowledge into decision support systems is crucial for actual prevention of water and air pollution. An example of such a tool is the 'pesticide fate tool' developed during the LandSupport project for the assessment of groundwater vulnerability to specific pesticides, and to guide decision makers in making the right choice in respect of site specificity (Bancheri et al. 2022). This underlines, that site-specific evaluations are needed. The EC’s monitoring report of 2022 on the "zero pollution” ambition (European Commission 2022a) and the the Reports of the European Court of Auditors (European Court of Auditors 2020a, European Court of Auditors 2020b) underline the need to address the influence of human activities on soil pollutants.
Extensive knowledge gaps still exist concerning the partitioning of pollutants in different physical phases, and the behaviour, transportation and fate of many pollutants in soil, water and air. These three compartments hence need to be adequately assessed to evaluate (the impact of) diffuse soil pollution, demanding complex analysis (Geissen et al. 2021).
Action
New research and research update on the partitioning of pollutants in different physical phases, and the behaviour, transportation and fate of existing and emerging soil pollutants in soil, water and air, taking into account site specific characteristics,
Comprehensive and comparative review of human activities’ impact on soil pollutant’s move among the three compartments,
Comparative review of the existing decision support systems to assess their ability to promote preventive decision making.
Bottleneck
Institutional barriers (e.g. lack of personnel and laboratory facilities) hinder new research and research updates on pollutants’ characteristics and partitioning in different matrices.
3.2.4 (Knowledge gap 7) - Baseline, Indicators/descriptors and quality thresholds/criteria
Summary of the Knowledge Gap
There is a need for baselines and environmental quality standards for the assessment and monitoring of soil health. Natural background concentrations and natural variability of soils, the physical and chemical state, and soil biodiversity are relevant in this regard. Detailed soil monitoring data are missing. Soil health descriptors and accompanying quality thresholds should be established, including a robust set of biodiversity indicators, to allow for systematic and high quality monitoring and soil health assessment.
State of the Art
Setting up the baseline at EU level, assessing different local contexts, and taking into account the industry specific hazards (UNEP 2024, Yacoub et al. 2014) is a prerequisite to effectively implement actions and effective mechanisms to monitor progress towards targets/implementation of measures. It is important to note that the impacts of soil pollutants are site specific, as they depend on soil characteristics and environmental conditions, affecting also their transformation (reactions, fragmentation, etc.), while transport can occur and affect other areas, with other specific conditions.
Pollution is one of the many aspects which can make a soil unhealthy: a polluted soil is considered an unhealthy soil. There are however sites where high contamination level is not due to human activities. It is argued that in such a case soil should not be considered unhealthy, if the natural equilibrium is not disturbed (Vieira et al. 2024).
Different indicators/descriptors/indices and accompanying quality thresholds/criteria for assessing soil health have been described in scientific literature. Vieira et al. (2024) refer to the use of different pollution indices (Brtnický et al. 2019, Ferreira et al. 2022, Kowalska et al. 2018, Ferguson 1999) while Sun et al. (2020) compare the different approaches of China and the UK. Kotschik et al. (2024) underline the need to define and implement biodiversity indicators. Policy frameworks reflect on that diversity (Ferguson 1999, Deseo et al. 2001, EEA 2023a). Andres et al. (2022) suggested to include chemical residues, effect data for soil organisms in combination with occuring habitats to describe effects of chemicals on soil organisms.
However, a lack of understanding and agreement remains on which indicators and criteria to apply to define and assess (the progress towards) soil health, levels of soil degradation, and identify soils which need urgent restoration (e.g. trigger and action values) and prioritisation.
Importantly, robust indicators to monitor effectiveness of soil management (prevention and restoration) strategies to restore soil health are needed. However, before starting monitoring programs of chemical residues in soils, the sets of chemicals to be monitored and other pollution indicators, as well as the sampling methods needs to be defined. Soil organisms such as Acari and Collembola and earthworms have been suggested to be potentially good indicators to assess soil pollution and effectiveness of management strategies (Sahana 2010, Xiao et al. 2022). Moreover, also nematodes are candidates for indicators (FAO et al. 2020).
In order to efficiently set and achieve targets, a clear understanding of baselines, indicators and quality thresholds is key.
Actions
Review and comparative analysis of the baselines with consideration given to site specificity and natural contamination level,
Gather knowledge on expectation abundances and diversity of in-soil biodiversity - start with earthworms and develop indicators and criteria for determining chemical and biological soil health in view of soil diversity,
Review and development of environmental quality standards for pollution and soil biodiversity monitoring .
Bottleneck
Ambiguity of the definition of soil health and its indicators hinders comparative analysis and establishing clear baselines, and harmonizing environmental quality standards and targets.
3.2.5 (Knowledge Gap 8) - Overall impact of soil pollution on wider ecosystem functioning (beyond soils)
Summary of the Knowledge Gap
The relationship between soil pollution and ecosystem functioning is not fully understood and/or acknowledged, partly due to insufficient available data. Thus there is a lack of a framework that addresses the various aspects related to the link between soil pollution, prevention and ecosystem functioning in a spatiotemporal context. Soil functions play a key role in why and how soil pollution affects ecosystem functioning. While that role has been extensively researched in a sector specific context, there is a lack of a holistic approach that simultaneously focusses on soil pollution and prevention/remediation/restoration choices.
State of the Art
Ecosystem functioning refers to the state or trajectory of ecosystems in terms of innate pathways and fluxes of energy, matter, and information occurring through essential ecosystem processes, such as productivity, nutrient and biogeochemical cycling, and ecological network dynamics, from which is derived the stability that supports ecosystem complexity at a larger scale’ (Correia and Lopes 2023). Soil pollution threatens that stability. Numerous studies have emphasised the importance and severity of the negative impact of soil pollution on the environment, on food security and human health (most recently European Commission: European Environment, Joint Research Center et al. 2024, Vieira et al. 2024).
The need for a comprehensive soil protection has been recognised since the 1990s and the EU acted upon it in the early years of 2000 by adopting thematic strategies addressing all the issues mentioned (Semikolennykh 2008). Since then, science has constantly reinforced, provided new insights, and highlighted the growing severity of human-driven pollution induced disturbance of the ecosystem functioning and its consequences, and the sectoral responses to some of the consequences (for agriculture: FAO 2023, FAO 2024a, Lord 2024, for industry: Obeng-Odoom 2023, Liu et al. 2023). The adoption of the Green Deal and the Zero Pollution Action Plan is the acknowledgement of that threat.
Nature-based remediation technologies use ecosystem services building on the support of soil functions. Thus, if soil functions are put in the centre, four main ways can be identified through which soil pollution affects directly and/or indirectly the ecosystem functioning: 1. the impairment of soil functions due to pollution causing negative changes in soil’s physical, chemical properties and its functional biodiversity which are key to the provision of ecosystem services. 2. soil function that provides for the bioavailability of pollutants, making plant uptake possible, leading to accumulation of pollutants in the food chain, 3. the transport of pollutants by water and air, 4. intentional use of soil filtering/detoxicating and/or plant uptake functions for remediation purposes. Therefore, also when making decisions on remediation technology, decision makers should consider the impact of remediation on the overall ecosystem functioning. All four pathways affect the spatiotemporal scale of soil pollution.
While it is important to promote research shedding light on the links between soil pollution and ecosystem functioning, and innovation of new technologies and land and soil management approaches, the main question remains how to transform our economy (all sectors) to ensure soil health and soil pollution prevention are taken effectively into account, and to ensure the protection of ecosystem functioning as the basis of human existence.
Actions
Research on the links between soil pollution and ecosystem functioning,
Review and update the existing data in order to establish the relationship between pollution and ecosystem functioning,
Development of a comprehensive analytical framework to address spatiotemporal economic, institutional and policy failures and identify decision making levels in order to reach prevention of pollution.
Systematic monitoring of changes in ecosystem functioning due to soil pollution and/or prevention measures including restoration and remediation
Bottleneck
Differences in stakeholders' perception on the relationship between soil pollution and ecosystem functioning and on the need for a holistic approach hinder prevention oriented policy development and decision making.,
Sectoral interests related to soil pollution and prevention lead to policy fragmentation and contradiction, along with disproportionate allocation and/or distortion of financial resources and hinder the implementation of prevention oriented policies.
Differences in level of detail, sources (different sectors, spatial and time scales, etc.) and structure of data hinder a holistic and overarching framework addressing the impact of prevention of soil pollution and remediation/restoration on ecosystem functioning.
3.2.6 (Knowledge Gap 9) - Technical/practical tools to prevent agricultural soil pollution
Summary of the Knowledge Gap
Although a wide array of management practices and technologies, including IPM strategies, agroecological practices, agroforestry, conservation and regenerative practices, biocontrol, monitoring and precision technologies are available to reduce, minimise or eliminate agricultural soil pollution and restore soil health for many cropping systems, there is still a need to further optimise and develop these existing practices, methodologies and technologies. There is a need for the compilation and translation of best available practices to minimise soil pollution and restoration into crop-specific and pedoclimatic integrated pest/crop management rules. Further research is still needed to develop and/or optimise these sustainable soil management practices and technologies for all cropping systems, climatic and environmental conditions and pests. Sustainable soil management rules should be science-based; practice-proofed and built on experiences in field projects gathering independent scientific expertise and practice. The use of functional biodiversity in increasing natural pest control and decreasing dependence on pesticides is a complex field, which needs specialised adaptation to specific cropping systems and environments. Also, adequate risk assessment systems are needed to effectively and efficiently assess new technologies.
State of the Art
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is based on preventative measures, increasing natural pest control (beneficial organisms) and the resilience of cropping systems against pests, while only using chemical pesticides when all other methods have been exhausted and failed. In this knowledge gap 9, we highlight a few key aspects of preventative agricultural measures on which research and innovation should focus, to enhance their further development and optimisation.
IPM is considered key in reducing agricultural soil pollution and restoring soil health. Although very developed for a wide variety of cropping systems, more research is indicated to further develop and optimise IPM for all farming and cropping systems, and on the integrative assessment of the full range of benefits associated with IPM, regarding e.g. soil biodiversity and (soil) ecosystem services. E.g. Deguine et al. (2021)have highlighted the lack of research on IPM/gaps in research programs. They highlight that integrative, interdisciplinary research, e.g. on soil and aboveground biodiversity and interactions with agroecosystem components, landscape ecology and its renewed scales are still mostly missing (Begg et al. 2017, Brewer and Goodell 2012, Redlich et al. 2018). The authors state that most research on IPM tends to list and describe tactical solutions separately, in specific contexts (e.g. focusing on a single pest, single crop, specific context), rather than scientifically understanding the advantage of using them together to harness synergy. There is a need for more integrative assessments, which take into account different pests and all management aspects. Important projects which have focused/are focussing on taking into account all aspects of IPM are the European ‘Pure’ project on field crops (Vasileiadis et al. 2017Vasileiadis et al. 2018, Lescourret 2017) and the European IPM works project.
Agroecology encompasses the whole food system, and is based on sustainable use of local renewable resources, local farmers’ knowledge and priorities, wise use of biodiversity to provide ecosystem services and resilience, and solutions that provide multiple benefits (environmental, economic, social) from local to global. It is based on 13 principles, including maintaining and enhancing soil health and biodiversity (Agroecology Europe 2025). Available research shows the benefits of agroecology for the environment, including soil health, food security and nutrition (Nicholls and and Altieri 2018, Bezner Kerr et al. 2021). More research is needed on best agroecological practices for all relevant EU crops and farming systems. Specific identified research needs to optimise agroecological (and IPM) practices, as described by Deguine (2023), include research on sustainable seed resources and breeding, the electrochemical soil-plant health model and microbiota-mediated plant-soil feedback.
Agroforestry is associated with reductions in soil pollution, e.g. through the minimisation of pesticide use and risk, and the reduction of excess nitrogen and phosphorus residues in soil, effectively contributing to the restoration of soil health, while also reducing the runoff/drift of soil pollution.
Biocontrol measures include the use of macrobials, microbioals, natural substances or semiochemicals to prevent and control pests. Biocontrol has shown to be very effective in a wide range of cropping systems, and decreases in the use of chemicals in the field, as well as decreasing pressure on soils, aboveground biodiversity and human health. The effectiveness of biocontrol depends also on the functional biodiversity present at field and landscape level, which can greatly contribute to the effectiveness of biocontrol. More research is needed on the development of biocontrol agents for a wider variety of pests and cropping systems, and on the interactions between all categories of biocontrol and biodiversity. Also specifically on the impacts of biocontrol on soil health, more research is needed.
Mechanical weeding technology/robots: Nichols et al. (2015)described weed dynamics and the principles of conservation agriculture, combining no-till, crop rotation and surface residue, while underlining the need for further research on tillage-residue interactions and stacked rotation. Jiao et al. (2024) and Lytridis and Pachidis (2024) describe the advances in ground robotic technologies for site-specific weed management. They highlight the importance and significant promise of the technology, and the need for specifically more research on weed identification for real-time in open-field conditions, and combined application of mechanical and laserweeding.
Monitoring technology: Promising research has been done on the monitoring of plant and soil health using technology such as drones, leading to effective application and these practices being applied more widely. More research is still indicated, e.g. regarding the detection of diseases without visible symptoms. While more research already focused on fungal pests, less research has been done for virus, nematic and abiotic diseases. Some crops/fruits, such as grape and watermelon have been researched more than others. While more studies use field images, less studies use leaf or plant images. Therefore, research on small-scale objects such as leaves/individual plants will require higher- resolution visual inspections.
Actions
Research on IPM, agroecological, agroforestry, and regenerative and conservation practices, to optimise IPM for all relevant EU crops/pests, and to assess all benefits of IPM at landscape-scale level, in framework of soil health, soil and aboveground biodiversity and ecosystem services,
Research on biocontrol measures, to extend biocontrol options for a wider variety of pests and cropping systems,
Research on technology/robotics to enhance monitoring of pests/crop health/soil health and mechanical weeding,
Further expanding, connecting and coordinating living labs, lighthouses and regional networks working on IPM, agroecology, agroforestry, conservation/regenerative agriculture, to expand testing of sustainable agricultural practices, which minimise or eliminate soil pollution and effectively restore soils,
Research on ‘system innovation’, ‘system shifts’, and the design of alternative cropping and farming systems at regional/landscape level which effectively reduce soil pollution and restore soils.
Bottlenecks
Diversity in cropping systems, pests, and conditions and farming systems in the EU challenges the development of preventive measures for all farming systems and environmental conditions
Lack of effective implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation and effective spending of public funds, leading to a lack of clear incentives, drivers and obligations for further development and optimisation of sustainable cropping practices,
Fragmentation of projects, initiatives and networks working on sustainable agricultural soil management practices hinders the shift to wide implementation of soil health and prevention oriented agricultural practices.
Conflicts of interests between e.g. agrochemical companies and further development and optimisation of agronomic practices minimising inputs/soil pollution hinder the implementation of preventative and soil health oriented policies.
3.2.7 (Knowledge Gap 10) Knowledge gaps regarding the implementation and upscaling of preventative measures to to address agricultural soil pollution
Summary of Knowledge Gap
While a wide variety of agronomic practices which effectively reduce, minimise or eliminate soil pollution are available (see above), their widescale implementation is still largely lacking. As mentioned above, despite IPM being mandatory in the EU through the Sustainable use of Pesticides Regulation since 2014, multiple analyses of EU bodies have pointed to the lack of implementation of IPM since then. Also the implementation of biocontrol, agroecological, agroforestry, regenerative and conservation practices is lacking. Multiple knowledge gaps still exist regarding the existing implementation gaps related to sustainable soil management practices in agriculture.
State of the Art
IPM is mandatory in the EU since 2014, through the sustainable use of pesticides directive (European Parliament and of the Council 2009, SUD). IPM, as formulated in the SUD, entails the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems, and encouraging natural pest control mechanisms. IPM requires the use of practices and products with the lowest risk to human health and the environment. Although many farmers throughout Europe have been very successfully applying IPM and preventative, low-input and nature-inclusive agricultural practices, while maintaining stable yield and profitability, wide-scale implementation has been lacking (Mora et al. 2023), as was mentioned in the introduction above. Knowledge gap 10 elaborates further on the knowledge gap related to lack of implementation of available practices.
Available research shows that IPM, and agroecological and organic practices are associated with environmental benefits, including for soil health, and associated with stable yields and profitability, frequently increasing profitability. Nandillon et al. (2024) studied 1000 commercial farms in the French DEPHY network and found no correlation between the reduction of pesticide use and changes in economic performance. van der Ploeg et al. (2019) showed that agroecology has a huge potential in offering farmers more sustainable production of healthier food while improving farmer’s incomes. Also Mouratiadou et al. (2024) concluded that agroecological practices are associated more often with positive socio-economic outcomes, although magnitude, temporal aspects and success factors related to the outcomes, as well as trade-offs and system-level effects need further assessment. Lechenet et al. (2017) showed that pesticide use can be greatly reduced through the adoption of different production techniques, and that low pesticide use rarely decreases productivity and profitability in arable farms (Furlan and Kreutzweiser 2015). The European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture found that regenerative practices led to a higher full productivitiy, higher phtosynthesis, higher soil cover and higher pland diversity, while using 61% less syntetic nitrogen fertiliser and 75% less pesticides (based on the Pesticide Load Indicator), while only slightly reducing yield, and increasing gross margin per hectare with 20% (European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA) 2025).
However, despite available research on the success and effectiveness of IPM and agroecological practices, the widespread implementation of sustainable soil management practices, which minimize soil pollution, is lacking.
Soil pollution is associated with many "lock-in mechanisms". Lock-in mechanisms can be described as the barriers and underlying mechanisms that are holding back the transition towards decreasing or preventing soil pollution. The lock-in mechanisms of pesticide use were analyzed elaborately in the framework of the Sprint project (Frelih-Larsen and Sprint project 2022). These lock-in mechanisms include factors related to farmer’s perceptions and views (Vanino et al. 2022), agronomy and research, economics, knowledge and awareness and policy and regulation. The fact that policy, funding and infrastructure mechanisms are focused on supporting a limited set of farming models and major crops poses also an important bottleneck. Current agricultural legislation and funding does not secure linkages between funding and protection of the environment and enhancement of ecosystem services: the lack of linkage between the Common Agricultural Policy funding and the implementation of IPM/ICM and restoration of soil health/minimisation of soil pollution form an important barrier. Barriers to large-scale adoption of IPM have also been identified by Deguine et al. (2021): lack of knowledge, risk aversion, conflicts of interests between agricultural advisers and the lobbying of agrochemical companies, lack of technologies adapted to local contexts, lack of clear and effective policies, lack of collective and interdisciplinary action. Furlan and Kreutzweiser (2015) showed that mutual funds are a key tool for IPM implementation, illustrating this by focusing on the use of insecticides for maize production in Italy.
Lack of implementation of IPM is also linked to the lack of concrete crop-specific rules and guidelines. The EC has recently published a database of 1300 examples of practices, techniques and technologies for IPM (European Commission 2023b), including 273 crop-specific guidelines, accompanied by a study assessing their effectiveness. However, there is a need for further development of this database, to complement it with all available knowledge and existing IPM practices, and to further transform it into a user-friendly database, which can be readily used by farmers throughout Europe, selecting appropriate best available IPM measures for their cropping system and pedoclimate conditions. The European Project Agrowise focuses on the practical implementation of IPM, the development of crop-specific rules and the further development/expansion/improvement of the IPM toolbox.
Also, the supporting framework to implement practices, such as independent (from business interest) advisory systems, and hence access of farmers to alternative management techniques, are absolutely key in implementing available practices much more widely. However, access to independent, high expertise advisory services on IPM and sustainable soil management practices have been lacking in most member states.
Nicholls and and Altieri (2018) find that the revival of traditional agricultural systems can offer promising models of sustainability and resilience, and that the creation of lighthouses, which can offer knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer learning across farming communities, are key pathways to effective implementation of agroecology. The IPM works program is an example of very successful implementation of IPM through the organisation of regional hubs, coordinated by hub coordinators, which allow for regional implementation of IPM, trial-and-error and knowledge exchange.
The expertise gained, and lessons learned through different initiatives involving the reduction of soil pollution and enhancement of soil restoration, such as projects fostering the implementation IPM, agroecological practices, and organic agriculture, should be taken into account. This information should contribute to further analysis of which initiatives and supporting conditions are effective to increase uptake of good practices throughout Europe.
Actions
Research on the effective implementation of IPM, agroecology and sustainable soil management practices
Invest funds in the further development, coordination, expansion and connection of regional networks of farmers/lighthouses/living labs working on the practical implementation of sustainable agronomic practices
Research on needed policy action/implementation/enforcement to ensure alignment of policies and public funds with environmental objectives
Foster the development of coordinated, independent advisory systems throughout Europe, through the creation of active, living knowledge sharing networks on best available (implementation) practices
Research on the development of crop- and sector- specific IPM rules, based on scientific expertise and best available practices, to ensure the effective implementation of IPM
Further develop a toolbox with best available IPM, agroecological and sustainable soil management practices
Research on key socio-economic drivers, including on insurance mechanisms and integration/inclusion of the whole foodchain, to ensure the effective uptake of sustainable soil management practices/IPM.
Bottlenecks
Lack of effective implementation/enforcement of current legislation and lack of linkages between environmental objectives and public funding hinder changes and shift towards wide implementation of soil health and prevention oriented agricultural practices .
Fragmentation of legislation at both national and international level and of existing initiatives (projects, EU/regional networks/national/local networks, etc.) focused on the implementation of sustainable agronomic practices lead to inefficient allocation of resources and hinder shift to prevention and soil health oriented agricultural practices.
The complexity of the food chain, and accompanying challenges in involving the whole food chain in fostering and ensuring the implementation of sustainable soil management, hinder the shift to soil health-oriented agricultural practices.
Lock-in mechanism of agricultural soil pollution (e.g. farmers' perception and views on soil pollution, then existing framework of input providers, farmers, processing industry and retail, the current system of allocation of agricultural funding, etc.) hinder the implementation of prevention and soil health oriented agricultural policy.