Good soil governance has to be a driver and thread specific in order to be
effective. Such a conceptual approach is key to get real regulatory impacts. The
analysis of German soil governance has shown that fragmentation of provisions
among different legislative instruments is per se not a drawback as long as the
provisions entail suitable requirements.
To implement the objective of LDN, a detailed analysis of current legislation is
required—taking the response hierarchy “avoid” and “reduce”, “reverse” and “planning instruments” as structuring criteria.
The existing international law does currently not entail an effective regulation of
soils. It does not encompass specifically dedicated obligations that are aim expressly
to ensure sustainable soil management. Good governance on international level
requires instruments for cooperation, for coordination between the various regimes
(UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCC) and should also entail obligations for driver and
threat specific actions. Instruments for international cooperation are already entailed
in the existing regimes. Coordination could be implemented by MoU. A specific
coordination treaty seems to be not the most appropriate tool. Obligations for driver
and threat specific actions would have to be embedded in existing treaties or in a new
treaty.
If a new treaty would be the political choice, a framework treaty with annexes in
which the specific obligations could be regulated seems to be a practical concept.
The core provisions could be entailed in the framework treaty whereas the driver
specific regulations could be included in the annexes. The advantage would be that
first the international governance would be driver/threat specific and second the
annexes could be amended without being ratified by all states.
Food for thoughts—nothing more. Currently, the main international activity is the
target setting program run by the UNCCD. In this course there may be a chance to
develop “best practices” models for the implementation of the UNCCD objectives
and the LDN objective. These models could then be taken by other states to amend
their legislation.
The aim of this chapter was twofold. First to provide some conceptual thoughts
on good soil governance in general which might be helpful to work out “best
practices” models. And second: to provide some thoughts concerning future international soil governance in case a window of opportunity may open. It is a tragedy
that such windows of opportunity mostly result from crisis—like the food crisis with
regard to the increased awareness on soils.
References
Bodle R (2017) Implementing land degradation neutrality at national level: legal instruments in
Germany. Int Yearb Soil Law Policy 2:287–308
Boer B (2014) Land degradation as a common concern of humankind. In: Lenzerini F, Vrdoljak F
(eds) International law for common goods, pp 289–307
Boer B, Hannam I (2003) Legal aspects of the sustainable soils. Rev Eur Com Int Environ Law
12(2):149–163
52
H. Ginzky
effective. Such a conceptual approach is key to get real regulatory impacts. The
analysis of German soil governance has shown that fragmentation of provisions
among different legislative instruments is per se not a drawback as long as the
provisions entail suitable requirements.
To implement the objective of LDN, a detailed analysis of current legislation is
required—taking the response hierarchy “avoid” and “reduce”, “reverse” and “planning instruments” as structuring criteria.
The existing international law does currently not entail an effective regulation of
soils. It does not encompass specifically dedicated obligations that are aim expressly
to ensure sustainable soil management. Good governance on international level
requires instruments for cooperation, for coordination between the various regimes
(UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCC) and should also entail obligations for driver and
threat specific actions. Instruments for international cooperation are already entailed
in the existing regimes. Coordination could be implemented by MoU. A specific
coordination treaty seems to be not the most appropriate tool. Obligations for driver
and threat specific actions would have to be embedded in existing treaties or in a new
treaty.
If a new treaty would be the political choice, a framework treaty with annexes in
which the specific obligations could be regulated seems to be a practical concept.
The core provisions could be entailed in the framework treaty whereas the driver
specific regulations could be included in the annexes. The advantage would be that
first the international governance would be driver/threat specific and second the
annexes could be amended without being ratified by all states.
Food for thoughts—nothing more. Currently, the main international activity is the
target setting program run by the UNCCD. In this course there may be a chance to
develop “best practices” models for the implementation of the UNCCD objectives
and the LDN objective. These models could then be taken by other states to amend
their legislation.
The aim of this chapter was twofold. First to provide some conceptual thoughts
on good soil governance in general which might be helpful to work out “best
practices” models. And second: to provide some thoughts concerning future international soil governance in case a window of opportunity may open. It is a tragedy
that such windows of opportunity mostly result from crisis—like the food crisis with
regard to the increased awareness on soils.
References
Bodle R (2017) Implementing land degradation neutrality at national level: legal instruments in
Germany. Int Yearb Soil Law Policy 2:287–308
Boer B (2014) Land degradation as a common concern of humankind. In: Lenzerini F, Vrdoljak F
(eds) International law for common goods, pp 289–307
Boer B, Hannam I (2003) Legal aspects of the sustainable soils. Rev Eur Com Int Environ Law
12(2):149–163
52
H. Ginzky