Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2016 pp 149–164Cite as

The Alpine Convention’s Soil Conservation Protocol: A Model Regime?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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

Abstract

This article considers the only binding international convention currently in existence to deal directly with soil conservation: The Alpine Convention Soil Conservation Protocol (SoilProt). In addition to details of the Convention’s socio-economic, ecological and political background, an outline of its structure and content is provided. Furthermore, this article aims to highlight where the added value in terms of soil conservation of the international regulatory approach lies vis-à-vis national conservation efforts. It also examines the extent to which the Protocol could be an expedient model regime for similar problems in other regions. In so doing, this article hopes to make a contribution to the debate on the significance of international soil conservation as well as the quest for the right legal means to realise a land degradation neutral world, as required by the 2015 United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, IPCC, Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B (2014), p. 1281.

  2. 2.

    For details on the development status of international soil conservation law, see Boer and Hannam (2014); for earlier developments see: Wyatt (2008), p. 165; Lee (2006).

  3. 3.

    See the following overview from Meusburger and Alewell (2014); also see Poulenard and Podwojewski (2006), p. 75; Körner (1999).

  4. 4.

    European Environment Agency (2009); Steiniger and Weck-Hannemann (2002).

  5. 5.

    FAO, Understanding Mountain Soils (2015), p. 3.

  6. 6.

    See: Villeneuve et al. (2002), p. 3; for the particular challenges for the protection of mountainous regions see: Quillacq and Onida (2011).

  7. 7.

    Germany ratified the Convention dated 7 November 1991 for the protection of the Alps (Alpine convention) with the Act on the Convention dated 7.11.1991 for the protection of the Alps (Alpine convention), Federal Law Gazette II 1994, p. 2538.

  8. 8.

    See overview of ratifications under http://www.alpconv.org/de/convention/ratifications/default.html (last accessed on 18 Feb 2016).

  9. 9.

    See Art. 11 Para. 2 of the AC as well as, e.g., Art. 26 of the Soil Conservation Protocol. Not all protocols have as yet been signed and ratified by all states. For the status of ratification see: http://www.alpconv.org/de/convention/ratifications/default.html (18 Feb 2016).

  10. 10.

    See Schroeder (2006), p. 134; Norer (2002), p. 9.

  11. 11.

    Art. 6 of the AC.

  12. 12.

    Art. 5 Para. 2 and Art. 7 Para. 1 of the AC.

  13. 13.

    Information on the German chairmanship is available at http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/europa-international/int-umweltpolitik/alpenkonvention (last visited on 13.01.2015).

  14. 14.

    Art. 8 Para. 1, Para. 6 (a–g) of the AC.

  15. 15.

    Art. 9 of the AC.

  16. 16.

    The Compliance Committee is supported by the Secretariat, see: Schroeder (2006) p. 133.

  17. 17.

    Protocol “Bodenschutz” dated 16th October 1998, Federal Law Gazette II 2002, p. 1785, 1842: For the status of ratification see: www.alpconv.org/de/convention/ratifications/default.html#Bodenschutz (last visited on 8th January 2015).

  18. 18.

    Art. 1 Para. 3 of the SoilProt.

  19. 19.

    Art. 1 Para. 4 and Para. 5 of the SoilProt.

  20. 20.

    Plans and programmes as defined by Art. 9 Para. 3 of the Protocol “Spatial planning and sustainable development” of the AC.

  21. 21.

    This is done in line with comparable criteria for the quantification of erosion agreed between the Contracting Parties, see Art. 11 Para. 1, p. 1 of the SoilProt.

  22. 22.

    Federal Law Gazette II (2002), p. 1785., 1842.

  23. 23.

    See, e.g., for Germany Art. 59 Para. 2 of the Basic Law.

  24. 24.

    See: Schroeder (2006), p. 137; see also: Söhnlein (2013), pp. 105–111; Alternative Unterscheidung für das Österreichische Recht, see, e.g., Lebensministerium Österreich (2007); Blecha (2009); also informative: Umweltbundesamt (2007).

  25. 25.

    For example with respect to the designation and handling of Alpine regions at risk of erosion, e.g., in implementation of Art. 11 of the SoilProt. See: Lebensministerium Österreich (2007).

  26. 26.

    For Germany see: Söhnlein (2013), p. 105.

  27. 27.

    See Schroeder (2006), p. 133.

  28. 28.

    See Lebensministerium Österreich (2007), pp. 114–115.

  29. 29.

    Implementation of the mandates to act for the German Federal legislator/Bavarian state legislator is well advanced. See synopsis in: Bayerisches Umweltministerium (2006) available at: http://www.stmuv.bayern.de/ministerium/eu/zusammenarbeit/alpenkonvention/protokolle.htm (last accessed on 18 Feb 2016).

  30. 30.

    GA Resolution 25th September 2015, UN A/RES/70/1.

  31. 31.

    Sustainable Development Goals 15.3 and 15.4.

  32. 32.

    Boer and Hannam (2014), Lee (2006).

  33. 33.

    States represent here complex entities which are naturally influenced on their part by domestic interests. Fundamentally: Putnam (1988), p. 427; Not least they represent the dilemmas of collective action, see fundamentally Olson (1965); see most recently Markus (2016), forthcoming.

  34. 34.

    Linz and Lobos Alva (2015).

  35. 35.

    Fromherz (2012), pp. 62, 67–68.

  36. 36.

    This aspect is frequently not dealt with in enough detail in the literature on international soil conservation legislation or results in only very general considerations. Exceptions to this are, in particular Ginzky (2015), p. 199; Fromherz (2012), pp. 107–109.

  37. 37.

    Geitner (2007), p. 62; quoted in Schumacher and Schumacher (2012), p. 284.

  38. 38.

    Generally, see Fromherz (2012) p. 69.

  39. 39.

    Fromherz (2012), p. 69 ff.

  40. 40.

    See for example Point 5 and Point 8 of the preamble of the SoilProt.

  41. 41.

    Fromherz (2012), p. 70.

  42. 42.

    Ständiges Sekretariat der Alpenkonvention (2009), p. 60.

  43. 43.

    Also see Schroeder (2006), p. 138.

  44. 44.

    See Art. 19 Para. 2 of the SoilProt.

  45. 45.

    Art. 20 Para. 1 of the SoilProt.

  46. 46.

    Art. 20 Para. 2 of the SoilProt.

  47. 47.

    Art. 11 Para. 1 of the SoilProt.

  48. 48.

    For the relevance of the corresponding aspects see in particular: Fromherz (2012), p. 57.

  49. 49.

    See, e.g., Art. 10 Para. 2; 11 Para. 3; 12 Para. 1, Para. 2; Art. 13 Para. 1 and Para. 2 of the SoilProt.

  50. 50.

    See, e.g., Art. 8; Art. 12–Art. 14 of the SoilProt.

  51. 51.

    Clause on taking account of the objectives in other policies in Art. 3 of the SoilProt.

  52. 52.

    Art. 1 Para. 5 of the SoilProt.

  53. 53.

    See regulations in Art. 8, Art. 12, Art. 14, Art. 16 and Art. 17 of the SoilProt.

  54. 54.

    The Member States the SoilProt are always Contracting Parties to the AC, see Art. 26 Para. 2 SoilProt.

  55. 55.

    Schroeder (2006), p. 134.

  56. 56.

    See Art. 24 of the SoilProt.

  57. 57.

    Schroeder (2006), p. 138.

  58. 58.

    Here it should be noted that the implementation of the other protocols also has a positive effect on the realisation of the regulatory objectives of the SoilProt.

  59. 59.

    This is the theoretical basic assumption of functional comparative law, see: Zweigert and Kötz (1996), pp. 31–47; Rheinstein and von Borries (1997), pp. 25–28; for critiques see in particular: Frankenberg (1985), pp. 426–429.

  60. 60.

    Blecha (2009), p. 1.

  61. 61.

    See Point 7 and Point 9 of the preamble of the SoilProt.

  62. 62.

    See Point 11 of the preamble of the SoilProt.

  63. 63.

    See the contentual suggestions for an international/global soil conservation convention: Boer and Hannam (2014), p. 15 ff. Fromherz (2012), p. 109 ff.; Wyatt (2008), p. 36 ff.

References

  • Bayrisches Umweltministerium (2006) Die Bestimmungen der Protokolle der Alpenkonvention und deren Entsprechung im innerstaatlichen Recht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Available at https://www.stmuv.bayern.de/ministerium/eu/zusammenarbeit/alpenkonvention/protokolle.htm.Accessed 1 Feb 2016

  • Blecha S (2009) Die Umsetzung und Anwendung der Alpenkonvention unter besonderer Berücksichtigung touristischer Infrastruktur. Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer B, Hannam I (2014) Developing a Global Soil Regime. International Journal of Rural Law and Policy, Vol. 2015, No. 1, pp. 1–13, Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 14/85

    Google Scholar 

  • Ständiges Sekretariat der Alpenkonvention (2009) Die Alpen – Acht Staaten ein Gebiet. Ständiges Sekretariat der Alpenkonvention, Innsbruck

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (2009) Regionaler Klimawandel und Anpassung – die Alpen vor der Herausforderung veränderter Wasserressourcen, Bericht EUA, Nr. 8/2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberg G (1985) Critical comparisons: re-thinking comparative law. Harvard Int Law J 26:411–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromherz N (2012) The Case for a Global Treaty on soil conservation, sustainable farming, and the preservation of agrarian culture. Ecol Law Q 39:57–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Geitner C (2007) Böden in den Alpen – Ausgewählte Aspekte zur Vielfalt und Bedeutung einer wenig beachteten Ressource. In: Borsdorf A, Grabherr G (eds) Internationale Gebietsforschung (IGF Forschungsbericht). Institut für Interdisziplinäre Gebietsforschung, Innsbruck, pp 56–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzky H (2015) Bodenschutz weltweit – Konzeptionelle Überlegungen für ein internationales Regime. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 4(15):199–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Körner C (1999) Alpine plant life: functional plant ecology of high mountain ecosystems. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lebensministerium Österreich (2007) the Alpine Convention: Handbuch für ihre Umsetzung. Bundesamt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee YH (2006) Nachhaltiger Bodenschutz – international, europäisch und national. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz F, Lobos Alva I (2015) Boden und Land in der internationalen Nachhaltigkeitspolitik – von der globalen Agenda zur lokalen Umsetzung. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 4(15):195–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus T (2016) Die Problemwirksamkeit internationaler Übereinkommen am Beispiel des Klimaschutzes. ZaöRV

    Google Scholar 

  • Meusburger K, Alewell C (2014) Soil erosion in the Alps: experience gained from case studies (2006-2013). Federal Office fort h Environment, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Norer R (2002) Die Alpenkonvention: Völkerrechtliches Vertragswerk für den Alpenraum. Institut für Wirtschaft, Politik und Recht – Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action – public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine (2010) People and pressures in the mountains, the facts at a glance. Ständiges Sekretariat der Alpenkonvention, Innsbruck

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulenard J, Podwojewski P (2006) Alpine Soil. In: Lal R (ed) Encyclopedia of soil science, vol 1, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, London/New York, pp 75–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam R (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. Int Organ 42(3):427–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quillacq P, Onida M (eds) (2011) Environmental protection and mountains – is environmental law adapted to the challenges faced by mountain areas? Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention, Innsbruck

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinstein M, von Borries R (1997) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung. Beck C. H, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder W (2006) Die Alpenkonvention – Inhalt und Konsequenzen für das nationale Umweltrecht. Natur und Recht 28(3):133–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher J, Schumacher A (2012) Die Alpen und der Klimawandel – Herausforderungen für die Alpenkonvention. In: Bosecke T et al (eds) Meeresnaturschutz, Erhaltung der Biodiversität und andere Herausforderungen im “Kaskadensystem” des Rechts. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 261–285

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Söhnlein B (2013) 20 Jahre Alpenkonvetion – Bilanz und Perspektiven aus juristischer Sicht. BayVBl:105–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiniger K, Weck-Hannemann H (2002) Global environmental change in alpine regions: recognition, impact, adaption and mitigation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Camberley Surrey

    Google Scholar 

  • Umweltbundesamt (2007) Anregungen zur regionalen Umsetzung der Alpenkonvention. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau

    Google Scholar 

  • Veit H (2002) Die Alpen – Geoökologie und Landschaftsentwicklung. Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Villeneuve A, Castelein A, Mekouar MA (2002) Mountains and the law – emerging trends. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt A (2008) The dirt on international environmental law regarding soils: is the existing regime adequate? Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 19:165–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung: Auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Till Markus

Authors
  1. Till Markus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Till Markus .

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

Markus, T. (2017). The Alpine Convention’s Soil Conservation Protocol: A Model Regime?. 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_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42508-5_12

  • 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