a permit. Before granting a permit states have to assess and to minimize the effects
on the marine environment.
79
Something comparable could also be established for soils. As mentioned in
Sect. 3 good soil governance requires to be a driver and threat specific. International
law would have to determine the essential measures for the various drivers and the
specific soil threats. For example: concerning the driver urbanization, international
law could entail an obligation to establish norms, standards and procedures for town
planning. Concerning contamination by industrial sites, an international agreement
could oblige to carry out an ex-ante assessment of the effects to soil, to minimize the
effects and to require a permit before starting the operation.
80
In this context it should be mentioned that a certain level of flexibility in
implementing these obligations should be conceded as the political, economic and
technical realities differ among states worldwide. The political priorities should be
determined by each society.
81 Therefore, the international obligations which requires
specific measures to be taken for certain drivers should be limited to the most
essential ones and provide substantial room how they are implemented on national
level.
4.2.4 Summary
There are different options on how to develop the existing international soil governance. It has been shown that the existing international soil governance by the
UNCCD, the CBD and the UNFCCC is fragmented and does not entail specific
soil related obligations. All presented concepts have advantages on their own. The
first option “keeping the status quo” foresees a regulatory concept which is based on
a general objective and which arranges for a good international cooperation—with
all the weaknesses mentioned. This concept emphasizes the sovereignty of states and
assigns the states a broad discretion how to implement the general objective.
The concept of a coordination treaty is the answer to the required better
streamlining of international work which is also of extreme importance. Memoranda
of Understanding (MoU) would be an appropriate instrument to achieve more
integrated and concise actions. Such MoU should be negotiated between the various
regimes (UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCC) to better coordinate the existing regimes.
To entail international obligations for more specific measures could supplement
the existing regime. The advantage would be to have more predictable outcomes for
the benefits of soils. These additional obligations should be limited to the most
important aspects and should provide for sufficient flexibility with regard to national
characteristics and priorities.
79 Article 4 of London Protocol.
80 Ginzky (2016), pp. 27–30.
81 Boer et al. (2016), p. 69.
50
H. Ginzky
on the marine environment.
79
Something comparable could also be established for soils. As mentioned in
Sect. 3 good soil governance requires to be a driver and threat specific. International
law would have to determine the essential measures for the various drivers and the
specific soil threats. For example: concerning the driver urbanization, international
law could entail an obligation to establish norms, standards and procedures for town
planning. Concerning contamination by industrial sites, an international agreement
could oblige to carry out an ex-ante assessment of the effects to soil, to minimize the
effects and to require a permit before starting the operation.
80
In this context it should be mentioned that a certain level of flexibility in
implementing these obligations should be conceded as the political, economic and
technical realities differ among states worldwide. The political priorities should be
determined by each society.
81 Therefore, the international obligations which requires
specific measures to be taken for certain drivers should be limited to the most
essential ones and provide substantial room how they are implemented on national
level.
4.2.4 Summary
There are different options on how to develop the existing international soil governance. It has been shown that the existing international soil governance by the
UNCCD, the CBD and the UNFCCC is fragmented and does not entail specific
soil related obligations. All presented concepts have advantages on their own. The
first option “keeping the status quo” foresees a regulatory concept which is based on
a general objective and which arranges for a good international cooperation—with
all the weaknesses mentioned. This concept emphasizes the sovereignty of states and
assigns the states a broad discretion how to implement the general objective.
The concept of a coordination treaty is the answer to the required better
streamlining of international work which is also of extreme importance. Memoranda
of Understanding (MoU) would be an appropriate instrument to achieve more
integrated and concise actions. Such MoU should be negotiated between the various
regimes (UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCC) to better coordinate the existing regimes.
To entail international obligations for more specific measures could supplement
the existing regime. The advantage would be to have more predictable outcomes for
the benefits of soils. These additional obligations should be limited to the most
important aspects and should provide for sufficient flexibility with regard to national
characteristics and priorities.
79 Article 4 of London Protocol.
80 Ginzky (2016), pp. 27–30.
81 Boer et al. (2016), p. 69.
50
H. Ginzky