Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2017 pp 371–384Cite as

The Soil Conservation Protocol of the Alpine Convention: Why Was the Adoption Possible?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 515 Accesses

Part of the book series: International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy ((IYSLP,volume 2017))

Abstract

The Soil Conservation Protocol of the Alpine Convention is the only binding and comprehensive international framework on the conservation and restoration of soils. This paper seeks to examine in the first place why legislation on soil protection often faces difficulties. Subsequently, it provides arguments why the contracting parties of the Alpine Convention were able to adopt this international treaty.

This paper is based on a legal opinion drawn up at the request of the German Federal Environment Agency in 2016.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    OJ 2014, C-153/3 and OJ 2014, C-163/15 (corrigendum).

  2. 2.

    OJ 2013, L-354/171. See also OJ 2014, C-163/15, fn. 1 ‘The Commission remains committed to the objective of the protection of soil and will examine options on how to best achieve this.’

  3. 3.

    See already Markus (2017), p. 149.

  4. 4.

    Milde (1951), p. 45.

  5. 5.

    German Federal Law Gazette I 1998, p. 502.

  6. 6.

    See Fokuhl (1994), p. 49.

  7. 7.

    Stollmann (1996), p. 367.

  8. 8.

    Peine (1992), p. 353.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. Odendahl (2001), p. 99 ff.

  10. 10.

    For an overview see Mayrhofer (2015), p. 10.

  11. 11.

    See Schmid (2015), p. 8; Duschanek (1989), p. 15 f.

  12. 12.

    Art. 175 para. 1 TEC.

  13. 13.

    See COM(2006) 232 final, p. 6.

  14. 14.

    Blasberg (2008), p. 10 f.

  15. 15.

    Roellecke (2005), p. 82.

  16. 16.

    See COM(2006) 232 final, p. 2.

  17. 17.

    See COM(2006) 232 final, p. 6.

  18. 18.

    The preparatory work on the Soil Conservation Protocol has not been published. I wish to express my gratitude to Peter Haßlacher, one of the negotiating parties of the Protocol, who provided the necessary information for this analysis.

  19. 19.

    Austrian Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) 22.9.2003, B 1049/03-4; Independent Environmental Tribunal (Unabhängiger Umweltsenat) 22.3.2004, US 6B/2003/8-57 (Mutterer Alm); Austrian Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) 8.6.2005, 2004/03/0116.

  20. 20.

    For a comprehensive interpretation of this provision, see Schmid (2007), p. 158.

  21. 21.

    See art. 5, 7 para. 1 and 15 First Draft.

  22. 22.

    See art. 6, 7 para. 2 and 10 para. 2 Final Draft.

  23. 23.

    Markus (2017), p. 162.

  24. 24.

    Explanatory note relating to the Soil Conservation Protocol of the Alpine Convention, Zi/En/26.04.95 (unpublished).

  25. 25.

    Schmid (2016), p. 47 f.

  26. 26.

    Schrader (2009), p. 134 f.

  27. 27.

    Explanatory note of the Austrian Parliament relating to the Soil Conservation Protocol, 1096 BlgNR 21. GP 32.

  28. 28.

    Explanatory note of the German Bundestag relating to the Soil Conservation Protocol, BR-Drs 224/02, p. 6.

  29. 29.

    Report of the French National Assembly, 2 June 2004, N° 1634, p. 11.

  30. 30.

    Müller (2016), p. 8 ff.

  31. 31.

    See Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) 28.8.2014, W104 2000178-1 (Kronhofgraben); Baumgartner (2016), p. 53; Schmid (2014), p. 695; Müller (2016), p. 20 ff.

  32. 32.

    An example is the Aarhus-Convention and its Compliance Committee (ACCC). Its rulings—although not legally binding—have turned out to be valuable from the content point of view and have, consequently, already been cited by national courts in order to support their decisions with further legal arguments (see e.g. the judgement of the German Administrative Court [BVerwG] 5.9.2013, 7 C 21.12 [ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2013:050913U7C21.12.0]; also see Alge [2012], p. 109).

  33. 33.

    See the record of decisions and recommendations at www.alpconv.org (20.6.2016).

  34. 34.

    See the decision of the Compliance Committee on art. 6 para. 3 Tourism Protocol, ImplAlp/2014/20/6a/3, published at www.alpconv.org (20.6.2016).

References

  • Alge T (2012) Aarhus-Entscheidung: Österreich unter Handlungsdruck. Recht der Umwelt 109–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner C (2016) Naturschutzrechtliche Interessenabwägung bei Stromleitungsanlagen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Energieprotokolls. In: Essl J, Schmid S (eds) Das Protokoll “Energie” der Alpenkonvention. Verlag Österreich, Wien, pp 53–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasberg D (2008) Inhalts- und Schrankenbestimmungen des Grundeigentums zum Schutz der natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschanek A (1989) Verfassungsfragen des Bodenschutzes. In: Duschanek A (ed) Beiträge zum Bodenschutz. Österreichischer Wirtschaftsverlag, Wien, pp 15–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Fokuhl C (1994) Rechtliche Situation und Entwicklung des Bodenschutzes in Deutschland. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 26(2):49–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus T (2017) The Alpine Convention’s soil conservation protocol: a model regime? In: Ginzky H et al (eds) International yearbook of soil law and policy 2016. Springer, pp 149–164

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayrhofer W (2015) Bodenschutz – Die Alpenstaaten im Vergleich. Die Alpenkonvention 79(2):10–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Milde KF (1951) Legal principles and policies of soil conservation. Fordham Law Rev 20(1):45–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller A (2016) Unmittelbare und mittelbare Anwendung und Wirkung des Energieprotokolls der Alpenkonvention. In: Essl J, Schmid S (eds) Das Protokoll “Energie” der Alpenkonvention. Verlag Österreich, Wien, pp 7–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Odendahl K (2001) Bodenschutz nach Völkerrecht: Bestandsaufnahme und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Archiv des Völkerrechts 39:82–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Peine FJ (1992) Die Gesetzgebungskompetenzen des Bundes für den Bodenschutz. Natur und Recht 14(8):353–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Roellecke G (2005) Natur- und Denkmalschutz durch privates Eigentum? In: Deppenheuer O (ed) Eigentum. Ordnungsidee, Zustand, Entwicklung, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 81–91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid S (2007) Alpenkonvention und Moorschutz. Recht der Umwelt 158–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid S (2014) Anmerkung zu BVwG 28.8.2014, W104 2000178-1/63E. Zeitschrift der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit 692–700

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid S (2015) Bodenschutzrecht in Österreich. Die Alpenkonvention 79(2):7–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid S (2016) Auf der Suche nach dem effektiven Alpenkonventionsrecht. In: Haßlacher P (ed) 25 Jahre Alpenkonvention. Innsbruck-Igls, pp 40–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader C (2009) Neue Instrumente des Bodenschutzes. In: IUR, ÖWAV (eds) Jahrbuch des österreichischen und europäischen Umweltrechts 2009. Manz, Wien, pp 133–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Stollmann F (1996) Die Bodenschutzgesetze der Länder. Natur und Landschaft 71(9):367–370

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Constitutional Court of Austria, Vienna, Austria

    Sebastian Schmid

Authors
  1. Sebastian Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Schmid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Environment Agency, Dessau, Germany

    Harald Ginzky

  2. Farmer Center, Iowa State University, Urbandale, Iowa, USA

    Elizabeth Dooley

  3. Sustainable Soils and Desertification, IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, Kleinmachnow, Germany

    Irene L. Heuser

  4. Kampala, Uganda

    Emmanuel Kasimbazi

  5. Research Centre for European Environmental Law, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Till Markus

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

    Tianbao Qin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmid, S. (2018). The Soil Conservation Protocol of the Alpine Convention: Why Was the Adoption Possible?. In: Ginzky, H., Dooley, E., Heuser, I., Kasimbazi, E., Markus, T., Qin, T. (eds) International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2017. International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy, vol 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68885-5_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68885-5_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68884-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68885-5

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation