Search

This chapter on soil governance and Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) highlights the complexities of soil and land degradation and of achieving LDN itself. The LDN concept has been developed to encourage implementation of an optimal mix of measures designed to avoid, reduce and/or reverse land degradation in order to achieve a state of no net loss of healthy and productive land. Through its introduction in the global dialogue to stimulate a more effective policy response to land degradation, under the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15, and the United Nation's Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in 2015, LDN is embedding an important place for soil governance in this goal. Moreover, it is the underlying scientific processes and principles that provide a sound basis to understand and implement LDN, and its practical guidance for pursuing and monitoring progress towards LDN targets. Legislative provisions should enable participation of all stakeholders in the development of policy, guidelines, and ecological standards for LDN and to enable governments, landowners and land managers, and the community to share responsibility for land degradation management. However, this chapter argues that reform is essential. This includes procedures for policy implementation, development of special codes of practice, land management indicators, and the physical and ecological limits of soil and land. Good soil governance is an essential aspect of achieving LDN particularly if the supporting, regulating, and cultural services provided by soil are maintained or enhanced without significantly impairing either the soil functions that enable those services or its ecosystem functions to continue.

The need for effective governance of soil resources is critical. This article outlines five levels of national soil governance against which states may assess themselves and highlights those the authors consider to be in the top category. Responding to the question Which countries or political states can be viewed as ‘global standard bearers of soil governance?’ it describes exemplars of national and subnational best practice that, if widely emulated, could significantly improve the condition of land and soil globally.

Nowadays contaminated soil has become a major and priority problem, and therefore, during the last four decades many countries have been introducing policies and practices for the management of contaminated soil. In Portugal the water and air pollution have always deserved a greater attention and therefore the regulatory system for contaminated soil remains largely undeveloped, leading to a lack of a framework in terms of policy, including incentives, administrative infrastructures and capacity, as well as the development and implementation of techniques for soil remediation. Since the 1970’s Portugal possesses a law for soil regulation, which is completely outdated and does not focus the main issues concerning soil contamination and preservation, and its environmental importance. The Decree Law No. 178/2006 constituted a first attempt to fill the lack on existing legislation concerning soil contamination, creating a general waste management regime (“RGR”), and setting up the legal framework required to give pursuit to decontamination actions and defining waste management taxation (“TGR”). Unfortunately, it seems that Portugal is still far away from having a “real” legislative regulation for soil protection. It was recently published Law No. 31/2014 that is mainly concerned with soil management, planning, and urbanism. The Legal Regime of Territorial Management Tools (“RJIGT”) approved by Decree-Law No. 80/2015, which undertook a profound reform in what concerns the land classification model, eliminating the operative category of urbanizable land, and being mainly concerned with soil management, planning, and urbanism. The Legal Regime for Urbanization and Edification (established by Decree-Law No. 555/99) was amended by Decree-Law No. 214-G/2015 developing the bases for the Legal System of Territorial Management Instruments (“RJUE”). This Decree-Law also introduces a substantial revision of the Code of Administrative Procedure (“CPA”) and introduces changes to various separate pieces of legislation that regulate or are connected with administrative procedures in order to bring them into line with the amendments to the CPA. It is crucial for any country the development of a harmonious, cohesive, integrated and sustainable territorial urban plan, but it should never be forgotten the soil environmental importance for sustainability and human welfare. The main aspects of soil quality are pointed out in this work, as well as possible parameters to measures this quality, and a general overview of the development process of environmental legislation is also presented. This work also makes a brief description of the evolution of the Portuguese environmental legislation in what concerns contaminated soil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surface soil contamination is a worldwide problem. Many regulatory jurisdictions attempt to control human exposures with regulatory guidance values (RGVs) that specify a soil's maximum allowable concentration. Pesticides are important soil contaminants because of their intentional toxicity and widespread surface soil application. Worldwide, at least 174 regulatory jurisdictions from 54 United Nations member states have published more than 19,400 pesticide RGVs for at least 739 chemically unique pesticides. This manuscript examines the variability of the guidance values that are applied worldwide to the original 2001 Stockholm Convention persistent organic pollutants (POP) pesticides (Aldrin, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Mirex, and Toxaphene) for which at least 1667 RGVs have been promulgated. Results indicate that the spans of the RGVs applied to each of these pesticides vary from 6.1 orders of magnitude for Toxaphene to 10.0 orders of magnitude for Mirex. The distribution of values across these value spans resembles the distribution of lognormal random variables, but also contain non-random value clusters. Approximately 40% of all the POP RGVs fall within uncertainty bounds computed from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) RGV cancer risk model. Another 22% of the values fall within uncertainty bounds computed from the USEPA's non-cancer risk model, but the cancer risk calculations yield the binding (lowest) value for all POP pesticides except Endrin. The results presented emphasize the continued need to rationalize the RGVs applied worldwide to important soil contaminants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]