Introduction Chapter 1 – A historic, but incomplete directive

The directive's stated ambition is clear: to achieve good soil health by 2050. To this end, it establishes the following measures:

• a common framework for soil monitoring (with criteria, indicators, threshold values);
• a soil district approach defined by each State;
• a register of polluted and potentially contaminated sites;
• a digital portal on soil health.

The whole thing is based on an architecture inspired by the Water Framework Directive.

But the limitations of the text are immediately apparent.

Chapter 2 – A non-binding framework: excessive flexibility and uncertain implementation

Despite recognizing soil as a non-renewable strategic resource, the text remains devoid of strong obligations:

• no obligation to follow a specific, quantified trajectory for restoring degraded soils;
• no binding hierarchy on uses (agriculture, urban, land recycling);
• removal of common principles of sustainable soil management in the final version;
• no direct link with the ZAN (zero net artificialization) objective nor with the ESG taxonomy.

Each member state retains maximum latitude in interpreting diagnoses, choosing its indicators, and developing its policies. In doing so, the risk of inaction or fragmentation of national policies remains entirely present.

Chapter 3 – Structural need: a functional, neutral and interoperable measurement method

What the directive does not say is how to actually measure soil health, how to assess the dynamics, and on what basis to build a prioritization of uses.

Today, the soil data is:

• discontinuous (coverage and discount discrepancies),
• too large (16 km squares, 1/250000 scale mapping),
• exclusively rural (few indicators in urban areas or projects).

A tool is missing that can:

• assess the ecological functions of a soil (filtration, storage, biodiversity, coexistence),
• to objectify the regeneration value of an urban development project,
• to support ZAN, ZEN, or low-carbon trade-offs.

In plain terms: an indicator of ecological soil performance, by project, by site, by territory.

Chapter 4 – IRICE and Effinature: a methodological response already available

IRICE has been offering the Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) since 2023, a rigorous tool for assessing ecological performance, backed by Effinature certification.

Applied to soils, this means:

• an assessment based on four ecological functions: filtration, coexistence, resilience, biodiversity,
• a scientific, independent, verifiable method, audited by a third party,
• a reproducible rating, compatible with ESG traceability requirements,
• a capacity to support the ZAN trajectory and land renaturation decisions.

The BPS does not replace the directive. It makes it operational.

Chapter 5 – What implementation for the territories?

Local authorities, developers, landowners, and environmental operators can now:

• integrate BPS valuation into their land or asset management strategy,
• justify the efforts to remove impermeable surfaces or reclassify them with quantified and comparable evidence
• anticipate the increasing implementation of the directive with elements that are already standardized,
• to feed into their ZAN strategy, their PADD, or their CSR reporting.

The directive provides a direction. The BPS provides the compass.

Conclusion – Don't wait for an obligation to structure your action

The agreement of April 10th is an important political step. But it will only have an impact if actors like IRICE ensure its operational implementation.

What we are offering is not an add-on: it's the missing foundation. A tool to measure, compare, and act. A framework to move from words to proof.