change (UNFCCC)
46 contain provisions relevant to the sustainable management of
soils. All three treaties apply almost universally.
47 However, each of the three
treaties has a specific focus and is thus per se limited. Moreover no treaty contains
soil specific requirements. Soils are therefore only dealt with in a quite general
fashion. The following provides a short reasoning with regard to these three regimes.
The UNCCD is the most relevant regime for the management of soil as it
expressively refers to “land”. However, the UNCCD—formally taken—only deals
with the so called dry-lands. Dry-lands taking the legal definition of UNCCD occupy
about 40% of the terrestrial surface.
48 Thus, the UNCCD is formally only applicable
to less than the half of the terrestrial surface. Moreover, the UNCCD does not
contain any soil-specific actions. Countries affected by land degradation are only
obliged to implement National Action Programs.
49 No further requirements were
agreed although the UNCCD has established itself as the leading regime for the
implementation of the objective of “land degradation neutral world” (LDN), by
various decisions taken by the Conference of the Parties in 2015.
50
The scope of application of the CBD could, in general, encompass all soil
functions.
51 However, the CBD has only put in place some programs which might
have a positive benefit for soils, like the program on agricultural biodiversity. The
CBD does not however foresee specific measures with regard to soils.
52
The prime focus of the UNFCCC are climate change issues. With regard to soils,
the UNFCCC provisions on accounting, maintaining and restoring sinks and reservoirs determine a general legal framework for action. The UNFCCC does not
however establish specific requirements concerning the management of soils.
53
The Paris Agreement which was signed in December 2015 has set ambitious
quantitative targets, which is to hold the increase of global average temperature
“well below 2 degree”.
54 The Paris Agreement was seen as a major progress in
international climate governance.
55 An ad hoc Working Group was established to
provide guidelines for the accounting of “nationally determined contributions”.
56 It
46 The Text of UNFCCC could be found under: www.unfccc.int.
47 “Almost”, because the United States of America are not a Party to CBD.
48 Boer and Hannam (2003), p. 153. The determination of whether an area falls within the scope of
application of UNCCD depends on the “ratio of annual precipitation to potential evapotranspiration” (Article 1 (g) UNCCD).
49 Hannam and Boer (2002), pp. 62–63.
50 Boer et al. (2016), p. 62. See also Wunder et al. (2017).
51 Ginzky (2016), p. 18. Hannam and Boer (2002), pp. 63–64.
52 Wolff and Kaphengst (2016).
53 Boer et al. (2016), p. 58. See also Streck and Gay (2016).
54 Article 2.1 (a) Paris Agreement.
55 Boer et al. (2016), p. 59.
56 Paris Decision, Para 31.3.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
45
46 contain provisions relevant to the sustainable management of
soils. All three treaties apply almost universally.
47 However, each of the three
treaties has a specific focus and is thus per se limited. Moreover no treaty contains
soil specific requirements. Soils are therefore only dealt with in a quite general
fashion. The following provides a short reasoning with regard to these three regimes.
The UNCCD is the most relevant regime for the management of soil as it
expressively refers to “land”. However, the UNCCD—formally taken—only deals
with the so called dry-lands. Dry-lands taking the legal definition of UNCCD occupy
about 40% of the terrestrial surface.
48 Thus, the UNCCD is formally only applicable
to less than the half of the terrestrial surface. Moreover, the UNCCD does not
contain any soil-specific actions. Countries affected by land degradation are only
obliged to implement National Action Programs.
49 No further requirements were
agreed although the UNCCD has established itself as the leading regime for the
implementation of the objective of “land degradation neutral world” (LDN), by
various decisions taken by the Conference of the Parties in 2015.
50
The scope of application of the CBD could, in general, encompass all soil
functions.
51 However, the CBD has only put in place some programs which might
have a positive benefit for soils, like the program on agricultural biodiversity. The
CBD does not however foresee specific measures with regard to soils.
52
The prime focus of the UNFCCC are climate change issues. With regard to soils,
the UNFCCC provisions on accounting, maintaining and restoring sinks and reservoirs determine a general legal framework for action. The UNFCCC does not
however establish specific requirements concerning the management of soils.
53
The Paris Agreement which was signed in December 2015 has set ambitious
quantitative targets, which is to hold the increase of global average temperature
“well below 2 degree”.
54 The Paris Agreement was seen as a major progress in
international climate governance.
55 An ad hoc Working Group was established to
provide guidelines for the accounting of “nationally determined contributions”.
56 It
46 The Text of UNFCCC could be found under: www.unfccc.int.
47 “Almost”, because the United States of America are not a Party to CBD.
48 Boer and Hannam (2003), p. 153. The determination of whether an area falls within the scope of
application of UNCCD depends on the “ratio of annual precipitation to potential evapotranspiration” (Article 1 (g) UNCCD).
49 Hannam and Boer (2002), pp. 62–63.
50 Boer et al. (2016), p. 62. See also Wunder et al. (2017).
51 Ginzky (2016), p. 18. Hannam and Boer (2002), pp. 63–64.
52 Wolff and Kaphengst (2016).
53 Boer et al. (2016), p. 58. See also Streck and Gay (2016).
54 Article 2.1 (a) Paris Agreement.
55 Boer et al. (2016), p. 59.
56 Paris Decision, Para 31.3.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
45