Soil Security 6 (2022) 100037

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Security
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/soil-security

International soil governance

Ralph Bodle
Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This introductory overview of international soil governance first outlines essential features of international
Soil governance. At the international level, there is no overarching central or superior authority. Rules and other
International governance measures normally do not have direct effect at national level; they need to be implemented by their addressees.
Land degradation neutrality
In contrast to other environmental topics, states have for a long time been reluctant to engage in soil
Soil-climate nexus
governance at the international level. As a result, international soil governance is piecemeal and spread over parts
of different institutions and processes, each of which has limitations. The Sustainable Development Goal “land
degradation neutrality” on its own is not a comprehensive soil policy, but its forward-looking planning element
in particular is a useful starting point for guiding national policies and further work.
While binding rules are not an end in itself, new treaty obligations relating to soil protection could be useful to
address gaps and shortcomings in current governance and focus international commitments. Climate change
provides an opportunity to increase soil protection e.g. through the climate regime, but there are also risks if soil
protection was pursued solely from a climate perspective.

1. Introduction classic state-based international organisation such as the United Nations

This article provides an introductory overview of international soil
governance.1 It first describes key aspects of international governance
generally and then outlines main elements of relating to soil. It concludes
with overarching observations of main themes and trends. The article
draws on results of research funded by the German Environment Agency
(Bodle et al., 2020; see Fowler and Hannam, 2021).
2. What is international governance?
International governance may be broadly described as international
cooperation between transnational actors who seek to address issues
that affect more than one state or region and have become too complex
for a single state to address alone. International governance is a broad
term that includes legal rules as well as processes, institutions, initiatives
and non-binding principles. There is no overarching central or superior
authority at the international level, although the United Nations tries to
provide a political focal point. In terms of actors, international gover­
nance often involves not just states, the EU and state-based institutions,
but also the private and civil society sectors. Examples would include a
as well as a loosely organised "initiative" such as the "4 per 1000′′ for soil.
The latter was initiated by the French government but includes a broad
range of public and private voluntary stakeholders who voluntarily
commit to put in place measures that increase soil carbon storage.
International law is a separate legal order, distinct from national legal
orders such as German law, or EU law. It addresses mostly states and
international organisations. Binding international law relevant to soil
comprises mainly a few international treaties. Treaties apply only to
those states that choose to become party to them. There are also
customary legal obligations relating to the environment that apply to all
states, but these are fairly general and have so far not been useful in
protecting soil.
In a broader sense, international law also includes elements that are
not legally binding in the strict sense, but which as so-called “soft law”
nonetheless influence the conduct of states and other actors. Yet in
practice, such instruments can have strong political force and are often
referred to as "political" (as opposed to legal) commitments. Examples
include resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly or the
United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), as well as decisions
adopted by regular conferences of parties to a treaty.

E-mail address: ralph.bodle@ecologic.eu.

1
This chapter is based on the results of research funded by German Environment Agency: “Improving international soil governance - Analysis and recommen­
dations”, which developed options for the German government (FKZ 3716712100); https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/479/publikat
ionen/texte_75-2020_3716_71_2100_uba_endbericht_internationaler_bodenschutz.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2022.100037
Received 1 October 2021; Received in revised form 27 December 2021; Accepted 9 January 2022
Available online 10 January 2022
2667-0062/© 2022 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
R. Bodle
International law is created differently from national or EU law and
has different enforcement mechanisms. It is traditionally based on sov­
ereignty of states, as reflected for instance in the principle of permanent
sovereignty of states over their natural resources. International law and
governance often aim at balancing and limiting that sovereignty, based
on the interests of other states or matters considered to be in the com­
mon interest. Outcomes are agreed between peers and many interna­
tional processes and bodies such as UNEA take their decisions by
consensus. This means that a decision is adopted unless just one state or
member expressly objects.
Rules and other measures adopted at the international governance
level normally do not have direct effect at national level. They need to be
implemented by their addressees in order to fulfil their obligation or
commitment.
3. International soil governance
International soil governance is fragmented. Different and in­
stitutions, rules, guidance documents and instruments at the interna­
tional and regional level cover different aspects of soil protection.
3.1. Main elements
The main international soil governance elements include the
following treaties, institutions and non-binding instruments:
• Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD)
• United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
• Ramsar Convention on wetlands
• Paris Agreement on climate change
• Soil Conservation Protocol to the Alpine Convention
• African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re­
sources (Maputo Convention)
• UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)
• UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Envi­
ronmental Assembly (UNEA)
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
None of these instruments and institutions has a mandate specifically
for protecting soil or provides an overarching or comprehensive
framework for soil governance. The history and state of existing inter­
national soil governance (see Boer et al., 2017; Bodle et al., 2020)
suggests that the case for addressing soil at the international level is not
self-evident. Although the pressure on soil is increasing and the condi­
tion of soil is deteriorating worldwide, so far states apparently saw
comparatively little need for addressing soil specifically at the interna­
tional level. This is in contrast to many other environmental issues such
as air, climate, biodiversity, water and pollutants.
The term “soil” is not generally synonymous with “land”. Generally,
the term “land” is used to comprise not only soil-related issues, but more
dimensions (above ground) and interactions with vegetation (Stavi and
Lal, 2015). But, of course, soil protection is often closely linked to and
partly overlapping with the use and management of land. This is
particularly relevant with regard to one of the few global and over­
arching governance elements relevant for soil: the land degradation
neutrality target in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG).
3.2. The SDG process as a global point of reference for international soil
governance
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are part of Agenda 2030,
a political commitment adopted by all UN member states in 2015 (UN
2
Soil Security 6 (2022) 100037
Doc. A/RES/70/1). The 17 SDGs inter alia cover several issues relevant
for international soil governance (Ehlers, 2017). Notably, with target
15.3 states agreed to strive to achieve a land degradation neutral (LDN)
world by 2030.
The LDN target leaves open the baseline, and its broad wording
needs indicators in order to be made operational (Ehlers, 2017; Wunder
and Bodle, 2019). There is no universally accepted understanding of
"land degradation" in science and the political sphere (Wunder et al.,
2018, at 193–194). For instance, while Article 1(f) of the United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification provides a definition of land
degradation, it is worded differently from SDG 15.3 and confined to arid,
semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas. However, degradation of soil is al­
ways also degradation of land in the sense of SDG 15.3. The LDN target is
therefore highly relevant for the international protection of soil. It
should be noted that the target, while implying a priority for avoiding
degradation, also includes a balancing (or: offsetting) approach, which
in principle allows degradation in specific instances, provided that these
instances are balanced or set off within specified temporal and spatial
parameters.
It is up to states to implement the SDGs according to their national
circumstances. Several international institutions facilitate and guide
implementation: The UN provides a technical and political forum for
exchange in respect of data, implementation and progress review. The
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification assists in devel­
oping guidance and indicators for measuring progress, and reports data.
The main indicator developed so far is “proportion of land that is
degraded over total land area”, which involves land cover and land
cover change, land productivity and carbon stocks in and above the soil.
These indicators may not be sufficient to reflect soil protection, but they
are an important first step. However, follow-up to SDG implementation
is mainly based on voluntary reporting by states and remains weak in
holding them accountable.
On their own, the SDGs and the LDN target in SDG 15.3 do not
amount to a comprehensive soil policy or governance. But at least the
SDGs and in particular the LDN target provide a global consensus with
political weight.
3.3. UN environment programme (UNEP) and environment assembly
(UNEA)
UNEP is the main environmental arm of the United Nations. In 2014
the UN Environment Assembly was established as UNEP’s highest-level
decision-making body. Its political weight derives from its members, the
ministers for the Environment of UN Member States who meet
biennially.
While soil is interestingly not listed as an individual major topic,
UNEP addresses soil as part of other topics such as “ecosystems”. These
include, for instance, the Global Environment Outlook report, technical
assistance to member states, support for implementing the SDGs and the
CCD, and co-funding the Global Soil Partnership (cf. the FAO). Although
UNEP and UNEA do not create legally binding obligations on UN
members, in contrast to many other fora, UNEA has the standing and
legitimacy of being a high-level UN forum with near universal mem­
bership. In 2017 UNEA adopted a resolution specifically on soil pollu­
tion - arguably the first international instrument which covers soil
pollution more broadly and not in relation to specific pollutants (UNEA
Res. 3/6). It also requested an assessment of soil pollution which
resulted in FAO and UNEP’s “Global assessment of soil pollution” report
(see at FAO).
3.4. The UN convention to combat desertification
The CCD of 1994 is a legally binding multilateral treaty under in­
ternational law with 197 parties that make it basically universal. Its
objective to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought
makes it the only global treaty specifically addressing land-related
R. Bodle
issues. However, there are important constraints on its role in interna­
tional governance:
The CCD is in principle limited to drylands through an intricate
mixture of geographical and subject-related parameters in the CCD’s
text. There is no list of drylands. In addition, the content of the CCD’s
obligations are structured along different complex categories of parties.
As a result, it can be a matter of scientific as well as legal and political
debate how the CCD applies to individual countries.
In addition, despite their value for guiding affected countries to­
wards general good governance, the obligations are rather general and
toothless. The core obligation under the CCD that requires specific ac­
tion is to prepare, publish and implement National Action Programmes.
However, there is little review and follow-up with regard to aligning the
aligning these plans with the CCD’s strategic framework and
implementation.
Despite these limitations, the CCD can be credited for laying the
groundwork for developing and establishing the concept of the LDN
target long before its adoption as one of the SDGs (Bodle et al., 2020, at
46–49). The CCD also decided to formally integrate LDN in its work,
financial support and other processes, and has engaged in various ac­
tivities such as a target setting programme and elaborating guidance
material. In particular, the CCD published a Scientific Conceptual
Framework that is intended to apply to all land and guide all parties in
implementing LDN (Orr et al., 2017). Like several multilateral envi­
ronmental treaties, the CCD contains provisions and institutional ar­
rangements with regard to financial and other support.
On this basis, the CCD could continue to pursue a leading role in
implementing the LDN target and serve as forum for discussing soil-
related issues between developing and developed countries. Specif­
ically with regard to LDN, the CCD has potential because it can integrate
it into its basically universal regime with an institutional setup. In any
event, the CCD does not claim, and is unlikely to be suitable for, sole
leadership on soil governance.
3.5. UN convention on biological diversity (CBD)
Other relevant treaties include the 1992 Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) with 196 parties. Soil biodiversity is one aspect of
biodiversity and the CBD’s work. The CBD is loosely linked to the more
recently established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an independent scientific body mandated
with the preparation of assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem ser­
vices at both regional and global level. The Thematic Assessment on
Land Degradation and Restoration, and the Global Assessment Report on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services provides valuable and compre­
hensive scientific data.
The CBD called upon parties to integrate the conservation and sus­
tainable use of soil biodiversity into their national biodiversity strate­
gies. However, these calls are not mandatory and parties have, for the
most part, failed to follow through and implementation at national level
with regard to soil biodiversity remains weak. Overall, soil is only one of
the many biodiversity issues within the CBD’s remit and the CBD ad­
dresses it mostly indirectly.
3.6. Food and agricultural organisation (FAO)
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation has engaged
in technical work on soils since the 1950s, both globally and bilaterally,
and today describes itself as “the lead United Nations agency concerned
with soils”.
Membership in the FAO does not entail legally binding obligations.
In practice, the FAO can be considered a central hub for soil-related
activities. It initiated the development of the non-binding World Soil
Charter as early as 1981 and implemented numerous soil-related pro­
jects world-wide. In recent years, the FAO made efforts to shift focus
from agricultural soils to a more holistic approach on soils as a provider
3
Soil Security 6 (2022) 100037
of ecosystem services (Bodle et al., 2020, p. 106). This shift in perception
has led to the Revised World Soil Charter in 2015 and new guiding
documents such as the Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Man­
agement (VGSSM). FAO also established and hosts the Global Soil
Partnership (GSP), a multi-stakeholder partnership which promotes
sustainable soil management through, for instance, establishing the
Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, and publishing the “Global
assessment of soil pollution” report of 2021. FAO appears to have firmly
established its role in global soil governance with regard to dissemi­
nating knowledge and developing non-binding technical guidance.
3.7. The Paris Agreement and the climate regime
The international climate regime is relevant for soil governance:
Land-based ecosystems absorb and store CO2 and are amongst the most
significant sinks of greenhouse gases, while land use and land use
change accounts for one of the most important sources of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions (Rumpel et al., 2019). The Paris Agreement of
2015 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change is also almost universal with its currently 191 parties. It does not
replace but supplements the existing 1992 Climate Change Convention
and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
The Paris Agreement sets out the goal of holding global warming well
below 2 ◦ Cand pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 ◦ C. The core obligations
to achieve these overarching objectives is that parties have to prepare
and present individual climate plans (nationally-determined contribu­
tions, NDCs) every 5 years that set out how the party intends to
contribute to the collective objectives. Parties have to take and report
measures with the aim of achieving these NDCs, but the climate regime
does not require specific measures from individual parties. There are
rules on reporting and accounting for emissions from land use, land use
change and forestry (LULUCF), on rewards for reducing emissions from
deforestation in developing countries, on adaptation and on financial
and other support for developing countries. But the Paris Agreement
does not contain specific soil or land-related obligations.
Yet science indicates that reaching the Paris Agreement’s tempera­
ture goals will most likely require addressing soil and land use, given
their important role as sinks as well as emissions sources. In 2018, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), the United Na­
tions’ independent scientific body for assessing the science related to
climate change, published a special report on achieving the 1.5 ◦ C goal.
It includes afforestation and reforestation, land restoration and soil
carbon sequestration in the options for carbon dioxide removal mea­
sures that it considers necessary to achieve this goal. In 2019, the IPCC
published a special report on climate change, desertification, land
degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and green­
house gas fluxes.
These scientific insights underpin part of the discussion of the “net-
zero” objective in Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement and so-called
“negative emissions” that are to offset remaining emissions. There is
an increasing number of countries and companies setting climate
neutrality goals, where restoring and increasing natural carbon sinks is a
mechanism to compensate for remaining emissions. While this provides
an opportunity to increase soil protection through the climate regime,
there are also risks if soil protection was pursued solely from a climate
perspective. Rules on obtaining offsetting credits need to be robust in
particular with regard to the permanence of soil measures.
3.8. Other elements of international soil governance
The 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is a treaty that provides a
comprehensive and sophisticated policy framework for the management
of wetland areas in general. Parties are required to formulate and
implement plans to promote the conservation of those wetlands that
they included in the Ramsar List. Although the Ramsar Convention has
been criticised for its weak and vague obligations, it triggered the
R. Bodle
development of wetland policies and legislation worldwide. Its current
strategic plan links to the LDN target in SDG 15.3. The Ramsar
Convention with its mandate for wetlands and the CCD with its mandate
for drylands are complementary, but cooperation between the two is
rudimentary and could be improved.
The 1998 Soil Conservation Protocol has few parties, but it is the only
legally binding international treaty regulating exclusively soil protec­
tion, albeit at a regional level: the Alps.61 Its largely preventive pro­
visions addresses specific drivers of land degradation, such as mineral
extraction, and certain soil threats such as erosion. Besides, it provides
for measures of more cross-cutting nature. The Protocol It is tailored for
the Alpine region and cannot—at least not in content—be applied to
other regions.
The Maputo Convention was adopted in 2003 as an African regional
treaty. It took until 2016 to enter into force and currently has 17 parties.
Its text is based on a proposal developed and submitted by the Inter­
national Union for Conservation of Nature. The Convention has one
article dedicated to land degradation and soil conservation and requires
parties to establish long-term integrated strategies for land resources
and land-use plans. It also specifically addresses the facilitating role of
land tenure policies. Besides prevention, the Convention also parties
have to plan and implement mitigation and rehabilitation measures for
areas affected by land degradation. The Maputo Convention could
become an important regional instrument for soil protection, but it re­
mains to be seen to what extent the parties will identify with it, as
implementation has been slow so far.
3.9. Financial and other support
Capacity building as well as technical and financial support for
developing countries has been a recurrent issue in all international
environmental governance. Many treaties, non-binding instruments and
international institutions call for, or establish, such support
mechanisms.
Besides bilateral development assistance from individual states,
there are multilateral channels with resources for support relating to
land and soil, notably the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the CCD’s
"LDN Fund" and the Green Climate Fund. For instance, the GEF has been
funding activities regarding land degradation since in 1994 and is now
formally available as a financial mechanism to the CCD. Its funds allo­
cated for the land degradation focal area for the period 2019–2022
amount to USD 475 million. However, it is also a recurrent theme that
developing countries need more capacity to access available funding and
other international support.
4. Concluding observations
Compared to other environmental topics, states have for a long time
been reluctant to engage in soil governance at the international level.
Reasons could include e.g. that agriculture and forests are regarded as
too sensitive to be addressed the international level, that transboundary
impacts are less obvious that in other areas, and that land and soil
conservation may be regarded less a common concern than for example
the response to climate change.
As a result, international soil governance is piecemeal and spread over
parts of different institutions and processes, each of which has limita­
tions. There are almost no international binding obligations specifically
regarding soil that apply more or less universally to all states. In addi­
tion, transparency and review mechanisms at the international level are
generally inadequate. With regard to soil pollution, there are still sig­
nificant gaps in the availability of data and understanding contaminants
under real conditions (UNEP/EA.5/19, 16.11.2020, para 10).
However, over recent years soil degradation has moved onto the
international political agenda, not least because of linkages to climate
change. The SDG “land degradation neutrality” target on its own is not a
comprehensive soil policy, but its forward-looking planning element in
Soil Security 6 (2022) 100037
particular is a useful starting point for guiding national policies and
further work relevant to soil. Apart from the SDGs, and perhaps recently
the FAO, there is no general mandate or central point of reference for
soil governance at the international level, either in political or norma­
tive terms.
While binding rules are not an end in itself, some argue that a new
treaty on soil protection (or amending an existing treaty) could be useful
to address gaps and shortcomings in current governance and focus in­
ternational commitments (Fowler and Hannam, 2021). Although
various initiatives over the years that promoted this idea were not
picked up by the international political agenda, this could change. For
instance, the European Parliament has called on the EU to include soil
protection in its external policy and in particular in international trade
agreements (EP Doc. P9_TA(2021)0143, 28.04.2021 para 63–64).
One important aspect is the more recent recognition of how impor­
tant soil is in addressing climate change. While this provides an oppor­
tunity to increase soil protection e.g. through the climate regime, there
are also risks if soil protection was pursued solely from a climate
perspective. For instance, many climate neutrality targets include
restoring and increasing natural carbon sinks as a mechanism to
compensate for remaining emissions. Incentives for soil organic carbon
sequestration as a climate mitigation option need to include safeguards
to ensure that this does not become a driver for soil contamination.
Safeguards should include e.g. requirements for the permanence of
carbon storage in soil.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Bodle, R., Stockhaus, H., Wolff, F., Scherf, C.-.S., Oberthür, S., 2020. Improving
International Soil Governance – Analysis and Recommendations. Umweltbundesamt,
Dessau-Roßlau.
Boer, B., Ginzky, H., Heuser, I.L., 2017. International Soil Protection Law: history,
Concepts and Latest Developments.” in: Ginzky, H., Heuser, I.L., Qin, T., Ruppel, O.
C., Wegerdt, P. (Eds.), International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2016,
International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy. Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 49–72. 10.1007/978-3-319-42508-5_7.
Ehlers, K., 2017. Chances and challenges in using the sustainable development goals as a
new instrument for global action against soil degradation, in: Ginzky, H., Heuser, I.
L., Qin, T., Ruppel, O.C., Wegerdt, P. (Eds.), International Yearbook of Soil Law and
Policy 2016, International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp. 73–84. 10.1007/978-3-319-42508-5_8.
Fowler, R.J., Hannam, I., 2021. Critique of the Report “Improving International Soil
Governance: analysis and Recommendations”, in: Ginzky, H., Dooley, E., Heuser, I.
L., Kasimbazi, E., Kibugi, R., Markus, T., Qin, T., Ruppel, O. (Eds.), International
Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2019, International Yearbook of Soil Law and
Policy. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 177–196. 10.1007/978-3-030-
52317-6_10.
Orr, B.J., Cowie, A.L., Castillo Sanchez, V.M., Chasek, P., Crossman, N.D., Erlewein, A.,
Louwagie, G., Maron, M., Metternicht, G.I., Minelli, S., Tengberg, A.E., Walter, S.,
Welton, S., 2017. Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality.
A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn (Germany).
Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Chenu, C., Garcia Cardenas, M., Kaonga, M., Koutika, L.-.S.,
Ladha, J., Madari, B., Shirato, Y., Smith, P., Soudi, B., Soussana, J.-.F.,
Whitehead, D., Wollenberg, E., 2019. The 4p1000 initiative: opportunities,
limitations and challenges for implementing soil organic carbon sequestration as a
sustainable development strategy. Ambio 49, 350–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13280-019-01165-2.
Stavi, I., Lal, R., 2015. Achieving Zero Net Land Degradation: challenges and
opportunities. J. Arid Environ. 112, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaridenv.2014.01.016. Part A.
Wunder, S., Kaphengst, T., Frelih-Larsen, A., 2018. Implementing Land Degradation
Neutrality (SDG 15.3) at National Level: general Approach, Indicator Selection and
Experiences from Germany, in: Ginzky, H., Dooley, E., Heuser, I.L., Kasimbazi, E.,
Markus, T., Qin, T., (Eds.), International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2017,
International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy. Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 191–219.
Wunder, S., Bodle, R., 2019. Achieving land degradation neutrality in Germany:
implementation process and design of a land use change based indicator. Environ.
Sci. Policy 92, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.022.