In fact, a better coordination in particular between the UNCCD and the UNFCCC
is certainly required as soil is very important for climate change mitigation because
almost all actions to increase CO 2 -concentrations in soil have positive effects on soil
quality. Thus to improve soil quality is in the interest of UNFCCC and UNCCD.
Coordinated actions would be more than reasonable.
The proposal of an international “coordination treaty” however raises many
questions which have neither been fully discussed nor solved. One issue concerns
the question how coordination, in case that it is desired, should be achieved. Would it
be by decisions taken under the umbrella of the coordination treaty which then
would be mandatory for the other regimes (UNCCD, CBD, UNFCCC) This would
require a kind of a hierarchy between the existing regimes (UNCCD, CBD,
UNFCCC) and the new coordination treaty which is hardly imaginable. To put in
place such a hierarchy would also require that all regimes have been ratified by the
same states.
77
The coordination could also be achieved by procedural requirements. The coordination treaty would then set up certain procedures to arrange for a coordinated
approach between the different regimes. However, it would have to be explained
why for such procedural arrangements a new international treaty would be necessary. Such procedural arrangements could also be regulated or framed by Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the various international regimes (UNCCD,
CBD, UNFCCC). A MoU is a kind of a contract between the different organizations
which only bounds the parties to this contract. MoU usually are used to agree on
organizational arrangements. To agree on a MoU is much easier to have than an
international coordination treaty as it does not have to be ratified by states.
4.2.3 More Specific Obligations
The third option of future international soil governance is to put in place more
specific obligations by new international provisions. The basic idea is that states are
clearly obliged to enact certain measures which should have then identifiable
benefits for soils. This conceptual approach is inter alia used for the London
Protocol. The overall objective of London Protocol is to protect the marine environment from negative effects caused by dumping, meaning the disposal of waste or
other matter into the oceans.
78 The regulatory approach is simple and clear. In
general all dumping is prohibited by LP. States are only allowed to consider
dumping of eight waste categories which are expressively mentioned in Annex
1 of the London Protocol. The disposal of waste of one of these categories requires
77 Treaties are only mandatory for their Parties. Therefore it would be required to have more or less
the same membership.
78 See:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/EmergingIssues/geoengineering/
Pages/default.aspx.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
49
is certainly required as soil is very important for climate change mitigation because
almost all actions to increase CO 2 -concentrations in soil have positive effects on soil
quality. Thus to improve soil quality is in the interest of UNFCCC and UNCCD.
Coordinated actions would be more than reasonable.
The proposal of an international “coordination treaty” however raises many
questions which have neither been fully discussed nor solved. One issue concerns
the question how coordination, in case that it is desired, should be achieved. Would it
be by decisions taken under the umbrella of the coordination treaty which then
would be mandatory for the other regimes (UNCCD, CBD, UNFCCC) This would
require a kind of a hierarchy between the existing regimes (UNCCD, CBD,
UNFCCC) and the new coordination treaty which is hardly imaginable. To put in
place such a hierarchy would also require that all regimes have been ratified by the
same states.
77
The coordination could also be achieved by procedural requirements. The coordination treaty would then set up certain procedures to arrange for a coordinated
approach between the different regimes. However, it would have to be explained
why for such procedural arrangements a new international treaty would be necessary. Such procedural arrangements could also be regulated or framed by Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the various international regimes (UNCCD,
CBD, UNFCCC). A MoU is a kind of a contract between the different organizations
which only bounds the parties to this contract. MoU usually are used to agree on
organizational arrangements. To agree on a MoU is much easier to have than an
international coordination treaty as it does not have to be ratified by states.
4.2.3 More Specific Obligations
The third option of future international soil governance is to put in place more
specific obligations by new international provisions. The basic idea is that states are
clearly obliged to enact certain measures which should have then identifiable
benefits for soils. This conceptual approach is inter alia used for the London
Protocol. The overall objective of London Protocol is to protect the marine environment from negative effects caused by dumping, meaning the disposal of waste or
other matter into the oceans.
78 The regulatory approach is simple and clear. In
general all dumping is prohibited by LP. States are only allowed to consider
dumping of eight waste categories which are expressively mentioned in Annex
1 of the London Protocol. The disposal of waste of one of these categories requires
77 Treaties are only mandatory for their Parties. Therefore it would be required to have more or less
the same membership.
78 See:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/EmergingIssues/geoengineering/
Pages/default.aspx.
Good Governance for “Sustainable Management of Soil” on. . .
49