Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity and Soils: Status and Future Options

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2016

Part of the book series: International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy ((IYSLP,volume 2016))

Abstract

How does the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) presently addresses the topic of soils? And what are potential ways of strengthening the integration of soils in the CBD agenda in the future?

The paper at hand reviews these questions. Firstly, we give a brief overview of the international governance of soil sustainability to date, locating the role of the CBD in this context. Secondly, we elaborate on how the CBD addresses soil (biodiversity) issues—e.g., in its Strategic Plan and Aichi Targets, through principles for the sustainable use of biodiversity, the CBD’s Ecosystem Approach as well as the International Soil Biodiversity Initiative. In the discussion, we highlight the value and shortcomings of the soil topic under the CBD. We also develop options for strengthening sustainable soil management both within and through the CBD. We conclude that the CBD can indeed contribute to the political promotion of sustainable soil use but that there are presently few incentives for CBD parties to push the process forward. Also, to be effective, the CBD is dependent on meaningful progress in international politics on the broader topic of sustainable land use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Weigelt et al. (2014).

  2. 2.

    See FAO and ITPS (2015), FAO (2010), SCBD (2014), UNEP (2014), and ISRIC (2008).

  3. 3.

    European Commission (2006).

  4. 4.

    In the literature, the distinction between soil management, soil use and land use is often unclear and blurred. We employ the terms “soil use” and “soil management” largely interchangeably, with a tendency to use “soil use” in a broader sense (referring to uses such as plant production, grassland management, soil use for residential settlements vs. industrial sites etc.) and “soil management” in a narrower sense (referring to more specific practices (mostly) to prevent soil degradation, like crop rotation, soil cover, tillage practices, afforestation, nutrient management, water retention etc.). By “land use” we mean broad categories such as agriculture, forestry, building land, mineral extraction etc.

  5. 5.

    More specifically, FAO and ITPS (2015) set the following criteria for sustainably managed soils: leakage of nutrients is low; biological production is high relative to the potential limits set by climate and water availability; levels of biodiversity within and above the soil are relatively high; rainfall is efficiently captured and held within the root zone; rates of soil erosion and deposition are low, with only small quantities being transferred out of the system; contaminants are not introduced into the landscape and existing contaminants are not concentrated to levels that cause harm; systems for producing food and fibre for human consumption do not rely on large net inputs of energy; and net emissions of greenhouse gases are zero or less.

  6. 6.

    Ginzky (2015).

  7. 7.

    Lal (2004).

  8. 8.

    IPCC (2014).

  9. 9.

    Cf. the chapter by Boer et al. (2016).

  10. 10.

    Altvater et al. (2015).

  11. 11.

    UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/INF/11.

  12. 12.

    Jeffery et al. (2010), p. 8.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Wunder et al. (2013).

  15. 15.

    Montanarella and Vargas (2012), p. 1.

  16. 16.

    Held and Kümmerer (1997).

  17. 17.

    The assessment which is due in 2018 will cover the global status of and trends in land degradation and ecosystem restoration (by region and land cover type). It will also identify the effects of degradation on biodiversity (including soil biodiversity), on ecosystem services (among others, soil formation, soil fertility, nutrient cycling, erosion prevention) and on human well-being.

  18. 18.

    FAO and ITPS (2015).

  19. 19.

    Ginzky (2015). In contrast, other authors highlight opportunities related to the UNCCD, e.g. Dooley et al. (2015).

  20. 20.

    SCBD (2016a).

  21. 21.

    Note that the provisions of Art. 8(j) are subject to national legislation.

  22. 22.

    SCBD (2016b).

  23. 23.

    MA (2005), p. v.

  24. 24.

    FAO (2015).

  25. 25.

    These are: addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society (Strategic Goal A); reducing the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use (B); improving the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (C); enhancing the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services (D); and enhancing implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building (E).

  26. 26.

    Leadley et al. (2014).

  27. 27.

    European Commission, IASS & Umweltbundesamt (2013).

  28. 28.

    UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/20/13.

  29. 29.

    UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15.

  30. 30.

    UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/INF/11, p. 2.

  31. 31.

    Jeffery et al. (2010), pp. 82–83. Links (though weaker ones) also exist to the programmes of work on forest biodiversity and on dry and sub-humid lands.

  32. 32.

    For an overview of the Initiative’s activities, see Dias and Coates (2012), pp. 9–10.

  33. 33.

    It also acts as a connecting entity to other relevant initiatives on soil biodiversity, such as the science-driven Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative (GSBI).

  34. 34.

    Pisupati and Prip (2015).

  35. 35.

    See in detail at https://www.cbd.int/reports/analyzer.shtml or the syntheses UNEP/CBD/COP/10/INF/2 (2010), UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/INF/1 (2007) and UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/INF/1/Add.3 (2007). The syntheses hardly mention soils, except for the last one which focuses on the implementation of thematic programmes of work. This includes the programme on agricultural biodiversity. In this context the synthesis points out that “a few parties” in their reports mentioned assessment of soil biodiversity (ibid, para 61).

  36. 36.

    See Jóhannsdóttir et al. (2010), p. 143. Cf. qualifying wording in the Convention text, such as the provision that parties shall “integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies” (Art. 6(b) CBD).

  37. 37.

    E.g., Brunnée (2002); Gehring (2007), p. 491.

  38. 38.

    Jóhannsdóttir et al. (2010), p. 143.

  39. 39.

    See publications at https://www.cbd.int/ts/.

  40. 40.

    Cf. ELD Initiative (2015).

  41. 41.

    The necessary number of signatories is determined in the Protocol; the Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols each specify the need for 50 parties to ratify, accept, approve or accede the Protocol.

  42. 42.

    Namely, those 23 member states willing to commit themselves to an EU Soil Framework Directive (which was ultimately blocked by a minority of five EU countries, leading to the withdrawal of the draft directive in 2014).

  43. 43.

    The so-called “Group of Friends (GoF) of Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought”. It includes Australia, Burkina Faso, Iceland, Lesotho, Namibia, Qatar, the Republic of Korea and Turkey.

  44. 44.

    With regard to forestry these have been, among others, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, but also Russia, Finland and Sweden. With regard to agriculture, these have included the “Miami Group” of agricultural exporters (US, Canada, Argentina etc.). In Europe, Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK successfully blocked the draft EU Soil Protection Directive.

  45. 45.

    Cf. Böhringer (2014).

  46. 46.

    “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries”. The mechanism created under the UNFCCC will compensate forest-rich developing countries for not cutting down their forests.

  47. 47.

    Wolff (2011).

  48. 48.

    Introducing an international payment scheme analogous to REDD+ is unlikely to work in the context of international soil policy, where the incentive for states is low to compensate other countries for sustainably managing their soils. We put the example of REDD+ forward here to emphasize potential political dynamics linked to reframing an issue, not for modeling a soil instrument.

  49. 49.

    See Wolff and Kaphengst (2015) and Wunder et al. (2013).

References

  • Altvater S, Dooley E, Roberts E (2015). Legal Instruments to implement the objective “Land Degradation Neutral World” in International Law. UBA-Texte 19/2015, Dessau

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer B, Ginzky H, Heuser IL (2016) International soil protection law – history, concepts and latest developments. In: Ginzky H, Heuser IL, Qin T, Ruppel OC, Wegerdt P (eds) International yearbook of soil law and policy 2016. Springer, Heidelberg (in this volume). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42508-5

  • Böhringer A-M (2014) Die Kooperationsvereinbarungen der Sekretariate multilateraler Umweltschutzübereinkommen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (2002) COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden J Int Law 15(1):1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • de Souza Dias BF, Coates D (2012) Soil biodiversity, functions, ecosystem services and the international sustainable development agenda. Issue Paper for the Global Soil Week 2012, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley E, Roberts E, Wunder S (2015) Land degradation neutrality under the SDGs: National and international implementation of the land degradation neutral world target. Elni Rev 1+2/2015

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, COM/2006/0231 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, IASS & Umweltbundesamt (2013) Soils and land in the SDGs and the post-2015 development agenda: a proposal for a goal to achieve a Land Degradation Neutral World in the context of sustainable development. Brussels/Potsdam/Dessau

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main report. Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO, ITPS (2015) Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) – technical summary. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring T (2007) Treaty-making and treaty evolution. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) The Oxford handbook of international law. Oxford, pp 467–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzky H (2015) Bodenschutz weltweit – Konzeptionelle Überlegungen für ein internationales Regime. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 26(4):199–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Held M, Kümmerer K (1997) Preserving soils for life: proposal for an international soil convention. The Tutzing Project “Time Ecology”. Gaia 6(3):212–216

    Google Scholar 

  • ELD Initiative (2015) The value of land. Prosperous lands and positive rewards through sustainable land management. Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (ed) (2014) Climate Change 2014 – Synthesis Report: Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)

    Google Scholar 

  • ISRIC (ed) (2008) Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement (GLADA). Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery S, Gardi C, Jones A, Montanarella L, Marmo L, Miko L, Ritz K, Peres G, Römbke J, van der Putten WH (eds) (2010) European atlas of soil biodiversity. European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Jóhannsdóttir A, Cresswell I, Bridgewater P (2010) The current framework for international governance of biodiversity: is it doing more harm than good? RECIEL 19(2):139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304(1623):1623–1627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leadley PW, Krug CB, Alkemade R, Pereira HM, Sumaila UR, Walpole M, Marques A, Newbold T, Teh LSL, van Kolck J, Bellard C, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Mumby PJ (2014) Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: an assessment of biodiversity trends, policy scenarios and key actions. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. CBD Technical Series No. 78

    Google Scholar 

  • MA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Montanarella L, Vargas R (2012) Global governance of soil resources as a necessary condition for sustainable development. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(5):559–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisupati B, Prip C (2015) Interim Assessment of Revised National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). UNEP WCMC, Cambridge, UK and Fridtjof Nansen institute, Lysaker, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  • SCBD (ed) (2014) Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. A mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  • SCBD (2016a) Key issues. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, https://www.cbd.int/agro/soilkeyissues.shtml (last accessed 04/04/2016)

  • SCBD (2016b). Addis Ababa principles and guidelines. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, https://www.cbd.int/sustainable/addis.shtml (last accessed 04/04/2016)

  • UNEP (ed) (2014) Assessing global land use: balancing consumption with sustainable supply. A Report of the Working Group on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel. Unter Mitarbeit von Stefan Bringezu, H. Schütz, W. Pengue, M. O’Brien, F. Garcia, R. Sims et al. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt J, Müller A, Beckh C, Töpfer K (eds) (2014) Soils in the nexus – a crucial resource for water, energy and food security, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff F (2011) Explaining the construction of global carbon markets: REDD+ as a test case? Int J Glob Energy Issues 35(2/3/4):255–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff F, Kaphengst T (2015) Exploring options for strengthening sustainable land use within the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. GLOBALANDS Discussion Paper, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, Hermann A, Heyen DA, Kaphengst T, Smith L, von der Weppen J, Wolff F (2013) Governance screening of global land use. Discussion Paper prepared by GLOBALANDS Project. Ecologic Institute & Oeko-Institute, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Law & Governance Division, Oeko-Institute, Freiburg, Darmstadt, Berlin, Germany

    Franziska Wolff

  2. Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany

    Timo Kaphengst

Authors
  1. Franziska Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timo Kaphengst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Wolff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Environment Agency, Dessau, Germany

    Harald Ginzky

  2. IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, Deputy Chair of Specialist Group on Sustainable Soils and Desertification, Kleinmachnow, Germany

    Irene L. Heuser

  3. Research Institute of Environmental Law, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

    Tianbao Qin

  4. Faculty of Law, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

    Oliver C. Ruppel

  5. DG Environment, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

    Patrick Wegerdt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wolff, F., Kaphengst, T. (2017). The UN Convention on Biological Diversity and Soils: Status and Future Options. In: Ginzky, H., Heuser, I., Qin, T., Ruppel, O., Wegerdt, P. (eds) International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2016. International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy, vol 2016. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42508-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42508-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42507-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42508-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation