on LDN focusses its current work on pilot projects in more than 100 countries with
the aim of “voluntary target setting” for LDN.
64 Parties to the UNCCD have not
initiated a debate to amend UNCCD for soil issues.
65
Nevertheless: political perception may change. To illustrate this, the case of
marine geo-engineering under the London Protocol could be used to illustrate this:
initially, only a non-legally binding resolution on ocean fertilization
66 in particular
was adopted by the Contracting Parties in 2008. It was then arduously debated
whether a legally binding regime would be suitable.
67 Finally in 2013, the
Contracting Parties adopted the legally binding amendment as mentioned above. It
is interesting to see that one core reason for the willingness of states to adopt a legally
binding instrument was the fact that several most controversial fertilization projects
had been conducted between 2008 and 2013.
68
There are good arguments that more must be done on international level to
achieve a better protection of soils worldwide.
69 For the following observations on
conceptual approaches it should be assumed that the global community is willing to
work on this “more” out of international soil governance.
4.2.1 Keeping the status quo
First option of future international soil governance would be to mainly keep the
status quo.
The main characteristics of the CBD and the UNCCD governance could be
described as follows
70 :
• Strong emphasis on national sovereignty of Parties
• Different responsibilities of states
• International financial and technical cooperation
71
• Awareness of the need for additional scientific information and knowledge
• Implementation by national strategies, programs or plans
The CBD requires in addition the following:
• Application of the precautionary approach
64 Minelli et al. (2016), pp. 87–88. More information under: https://www2.unccd.int/actions/ldntarget-setting-programme.
65 Mastrojeni (2018).
66 The resolution could be found under: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/
EmergingIssues/geoengineering/Pages/default.aspx.
67 Ginzky (2010) and Markus and Ginzky (2011), p. 479.
68 Ginzky and Frost (2014), p. 94.
69 See the arguments under section 1.
70 See Bowling et al. (2016), p. 9.
71 Morgera and Tsioumani (2010), p. 28.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
47
the aim of “voluntary target setting” for LDN.
64 Parties to the UNCCD have not
initiated a debate to amend UNCCD for soil issues.
65
Nevertheless: political perception may change. To illustrate this, the case of
marine geo-engineering under the London Protocol could be used to illustrate this:
initially, only a non-legally binding resolution on ocean fertilization
66 in particular
was adopted by the Contracting Parties in 2008. It was then arduously debated
whether a legally binding regime would be suitable.
67 Finally in 2013, the
Contracting Parties adopted the legally binding amendment as mentioned above. It
is interesting to see that one core reason for the willingness of states to adopt a legally
binding instrument was the fact that several most controversial fertilization projects
had been conducted between 2008 and 2013.
68
There are good arguments that more must be done on international level to
achieve a better protection of soils worldwide.
69 For the following observations on
conceptual approaches it should be assumed that the global community is willing to
work on this “more” out of international soil governance.
4.2.1 Keeping the status quo
First option of future international soil governance would be to mainly keep the
status quo.
The main characteristics of the CBD and the UNCCD governance could be
described as follows
70 :
• Strong emphasis on national sovereignty of Parties
• Different responsibilities of states
• International financial and technical cooperation
71
• Awareness of the need for additional scientific information and knowledge
• Implementation by national strategies, programs or plans
The CBD requires in addition the following:
• Application of the precautionary approach
64 Minelli et al. (2016), pp. 87–88. More information under: https://www2.unccd.int/actions/ldntarget-setting-programme.
65 Mastrojeni (2018).
66 The resolution could be found under: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/
EmergingIssues/geoengineering/Pages/default.aspx.
67 Ginzky (2010) and Markus and Ginzky (2011), p. 479.
68 Ginzky and Frost (2014), p. 94.
69 See the arguments under section 1.
70 See Bowling et al. (2016), p. 9.
71 Morgera and Tsioumani (2010), p. 28.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
47