ITEM 12. Soils4EU - Identification of priority areas for improving consistency and inter-operability of EU-wide and national soil monitoring and information systems
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•142 views
Fourth Working Session of the International Network of Soil Information Institutions (INSII) 6-8 November 2018 | FAO HQ – German Room, Rome, Italy
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to ITEM 12. Soils4EU - Identification of priority areas for improving consistency and inter-operability of EU-wide and national soil monitoring and information systems
Similar to ITEM 12. Soils4EU - Identification of priority areas for improving consistency and inter-operability of EU-wide and national soil monitoring and information systems (20)
More from ExternalEvents
More from ExternalEvents (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
ITEM 12. Soils4EU - Identification of priority areas for improving consistency and inter-operability of EU-wide and national soil monitoring and information systems
- 1. Deltares IUNG - Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research & IAMZ - Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza, CSIC-EEAD Spanish National Research Council - Estación Experimental de Aula Dei Blauw, M., Vonhögen- Peeters, L., Maring, L. Service contract No. 07.0201/2016/742739/SER/ENV.D.l SOILS4EU: Providing support in relation to the implementation of the EU Soil Thematic Strategy Soil monitoring and information systems
- 2. 1. What is the state of affairs at global, EU and national level (current situation): a lot is going on; many different initiatives at different levels 2. Desire for consistent and interoperable soil monitoring systems: Identification of priority areas of EU-wide and national soil monitoring and information systems. 3. What is possible and needs to be done? (look out) How to fill gaps and how to improve and harmonize The aim of the study
- 3. Soil degradation: a decline in soil health status resulting in a diminished capacity of the ecosystems to provide goods and services. This decline is usually caused by processes called: Soil threats Sustainable soil management Soil threats Source: FP7 Recare Threats identified in the soil thematic strategy
- 4. Soil monitoring is needed to manage our soils and assess the impact of current and upcoming policies Global level: • Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) EU level: • Soil thematic strategy, 7th EAP, Biodiversity strategy etc… National level: • National policies and legislation Sustainable soil management Policy drivers status action impact
- 5. • (Monitoring) Information systems allow users to capture data, process and disseminate information in a systematic way • This systematic approach is essential to improve the feedback loop, resulting in: – more suitable indicators – longer timeseries of comparable data – better trends and predictions – better analyses of interdependencies – etc. This will lead to better understanding of the soil systems processes (across borders) Soil monitoring and information systems SMIS
- 6. Global Soil Partnership (GSP) Improve the governance and promote sustainable management of soils • Global Soil Information System (GLOSIS) – Monitoring, forecasting and status reporting (SoilSTAT) – International Soil Information Institutions (INSII) 1st product: Global Soil Organic Carbon Map (GSOC map) • GLOSOLAN: Global Soil Laboratory Network Regional Soil Partnership: European Soil Partnership (ESP) State of affairs Global Level
- 7. State of affairs Global level: GSOC map • SDG 15.3.1: area of degraded land • Country driven endeavor • Based on available soil information • >1 million sampling points GSOC MAP V 1.2.0
- 8. EU level strategic initiatives • EU Soil Thematic Strategy, • 7th Environmental Action Programme • Resource Efficiency Roadmap • Biodiversity Strategy • 2030 Climate and energy framework • Soil sealing guidelines • EU Forest Strategy EU level binding measures: • CAP • Environmental policies: Water, chemical, waste, landfill • Etc… State of affairs EU level – policy drivers 35 EU level policies related to sustainable soil management and soil protection Frelih-Larsen et al., 2017
- 9. State of affairs EU level – information and data systems • European Commission: – ESDAC: European Soil Data Centre (hosted by JRC) – LUCAS Soil: Land Use/Cover Area frame statistical Survey Soil (EUROSTAT) • European Environment Agency (EEA) – 7 Land and soil indicators – European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) • Urban, Land and Soil systems (ETC/UCL) • The ‘INSPIRE Directive’ came into force in 2007, aiming to share environmental spatial information of all MS in a harmonized way. Orgiazzi et al., 2018
- 10. • Ideal situation: MS level – EU level – Global level • Reality: difficult to obtain data from national level – Gaps in data and harmonisation • Action: LUCAS Soil to produce data at EU level • However, for more detailed and accurate information and to prevent duplication of work most optimal to use (all) available data Need for consistent and interoperable systems and harmonisation of data State of affairs Supply of data and information EU Global MS Data & Information supply ELLAGRIN / SHUTTERSTOCK.COM
- 12. FP6 ENVASSO (2008) Factsheets: survey national networks Kibblewhite et al., 2008
- 13. WIKI – inventory and assessment National monitoring systems Frelih-Larsenetal.,2017
- 14. H2020 LANDMARK Availability of data and information
- 15. European contribution GSOC Available soil information EU level
- 16. Existing SMIS Availability of data; a comparison The Netherlands Denmark Greece Poland GSOC map Country submission Country submission LUCAS LUCAS LUCAS (2015) 211 (197 km2/site) 232 (185 km2/site) 491 (269 km2/site) 1648 (189 km2/site) WIKI 2 databases: Subsurface Registration Act (BRO) Different online and public databases 1 National Monitoring program on the Aquatic Environment and Nature 0 1: Monitoring of arable soil’ chemistry under the state Environmental Monitoring Landmark >1 million sites No data No SMN No data ENVASSO Dense monitoring network (0-100 km2/site) Dense monitoring network (0-100 km2/site) Few sites Medium – few sites (150-1000 km2/site)
- 17. Data is: • Sometimes not collected • Sometimes available, but: – Patchy – Not comparable – Not usable (not right information) – Not meeting increased demands – And countries are not sufficiently determined to collect it. • Sometimes not shared Insights Differences between MS
- 18. • Difficult to know what the state of affairs is at MS level • Not all the countries have a SMIS (or SMN) • Availability of SMIS: – public vs. private – open access vs. on request and/or not free of charge – online vs. report – language – Low visibility • Different goals/incentives if a SMIS is present, hence: – different ways how information is obtained and presented – different indicators/attributes/parameters are measured – different methods are used – different ways how data is it obtained: measured/monitored/modelled Insights Differences between MS
- 19. Two ways to get to harmonized systems: 1. Investigate what data MS have available, find common ground, make maps of information on those topics on EU level (bottom up) 2. Clarify what information is needed on EU level (or across boundaries) to maintain policies, ask MS to provide this information (top down) (GLOSIS approach) What is possible and what needs to be done?
- 20. There are four types of barriers when considering SMIS: 1. Technical: – Data-collection – Measured or monitored – Metadata – Additional information: land management practices, other parameters 2. Financially: – Obtaining data – Data and information management Gaps and barriers To come to an interoperable system
- 21. 3. Legislative: – ability to share data (data-ownership), data sovereignty – intellectual property 4. Communication – Awareness – Who knows what – Willingness to share data – Transparency in collected data and information – Language Gaps and barriers To come to an interoperable system
- 22. • Pragmatism: different indicators might lead to the same information on higher aggregational level (technical/financial benefit) • Data sovereignty: sharing information might be less sensitive than providing the actual data (legislative benefit) • Awareness: going from data to information encourages MS to unify and share their knowledge on national level (communicational benefit) • Willingness to share: stimulating development of knowledge from information through e.g. research, could bypass intellectual property issues (legislative/ communicational benefit) Possible actions Data vs information EU Global MS Highest resolution Highest impact of actions
- 23. • A lot happens on MS-level, but information about the initiatives is very difficult to retrieve • Many different reasons why this is difficult to retrieve availability, visibility, scattered knowledge, etc. • Data collection needs to be consistent over time otherwise be sufficiently documented also in meta-data why it has changed • When different data collection methods are used, it is very difficult to obtain harmonization in data more possibilities in information Conclusions
- 24. Conclusion and lookout If all the soil data is organized properly and in a harmonized way we can do incredible things! Latest developments could help to organize, document, preserve and publish the data (OpenEarth) and gain as much knowledge from it as possible (big data, machine learning, block chain, etc.) OpenEarth: A community that strives after sharing data, models and tools Open Source = transparent / reproducible Open: publicly available is encouraged but not required! Standards: use of OGC protocols
- 25. Data stages of OpenEarth From raw data to visualization
- 26. OpenEarth Share and reuse data! Google Earth OpenEarth Software stack: single input, multiple use EU-portal Map Viewer Desktop GIS
- 27. • GSP: “key is sharing soil data through web services, based on national soil data infrastructures (where available) and including soil research data infrastructures” • Start with sharing what you have & can: – Either data or information – Make use of experience of others and available guidelines when collecting and storing data – Start discussing the barriers, then the gaps will slowly be filled in Do not need the perfect system at once, but let’s get it started! Concluding remarks
- 28. Workshop Towards interoperable and consistent soil monitoring and information systems in EU 14:15 Workshop: SMIS in EU Aim: sharing knowledge, discuss and receive recommendations about how to reach an interoperable SMIS in the EU 17:00 Networking cocktail
Editor's Notes
- Thank you. I am very honored to have the opportunity to present here our first findings about soil monitoring systems irt interoperable and consistency at EU and MS level. As you are the expert on this topic, it is for us very valuable and important to receive your input, comments and suggestions, on our first findings. Your input will be taken up into the report which will be finalized and pubicly avalaible after this workshop. This report is part of the proejct SOILS4EU, a 3 year project for DG ENV. In this project we provide by delivering 6 report, 6 workshop and 3 policy brief support in relation to the implementation of the EU Soil Thematic Strategy. Deltares is coordinator of the project, and IUNG, UFZ, IAMZ and CSIC are partners in this project.
- Aim of this study is to identify priority areas for improving consistency and inter-operability of EU-wide and national soil monitoring and information systems. By having this, data(sets) can be re-used for different objectives. This avoids duplication of work and development of valuable information at EU and MS level with available data. This is done b 1,2,3 3) We really would like to discuss and receive input from you during/ after the presentation and during the workshop. I would like to underline that we focus on SMIS at EU and national level, thus not at global level.
- As you know, the reason that efforts are put into SMIS is that our valuable soil is under threat. These soil threats are threatening the achievement of the SDG’s and other policies (EU / MS) Some of these threats are man-made and could be reversed Some of these threats are mainly natural processes, can they be reversed? At best slowed down and we should adapt to these changes
- In order to make optimal use of soil functions and to restore and prevent soil degration, we need to measure, determine and monitor. For different goals we need to have healthy soils to provide us the different goods and services we depend on. At differernt levels (global to national level) there are different strategies and policies that are have directly or indirectly soil protection and the use of soils sustainably. With soil data and information we can assess what the status of the soil is, thus if and what policies are needed and the impact of current polcies. Right now different countries are in a different position within this Feedback loop To ensure sustainable management we need to understand the intrinsic functional capacity of different soils across Europe and how it changes over time. Soil monitoring is needed to support evidence-based policies to incentivise sustainable soil management. Strategic initiatives at EU-level, the European Commission remains committed to the objective of soil protection through the EU Soil Thematic Strategy and the 7th Environment Action Programme (Publications Office of the European Union 2013) with the objectives that by 2020 'land is managed sustainably in the Union, soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well underway'. In its recent report on the state of the European environment, the European Environment Agency established that the loss of soil functions and land degradation remain major concerns, and that soils are expected to show continued deteriorating trends in the future (EEA, 2015)
- Indicators are variables which may show that a process has taken place – they are not necessarily the actual process itself. This will lead to better understanding of the soil systems process and how to influence it possitively
- Already a lot has been done and is going on, On Global Level the GSP is the most important initative concerning protection of soils. For this topic SMIS, especially pillar 4 and 5 both promote the building of SIS. These both pillars are highly connceted as execution of Pillar 4 is more meaningful for governance, if the recommendations of Pillar 5 are considered. On the other hand, if soil data and information is not collected at all, governance will run blind. GSP: a mechanism to develop a strong interactive partnership and enhanced collaboration and synergy of efforts between all stakeholders The goal of GLOSIS is to enhance quantity and quality of soil data and information at global level. GLOSOLAN: 187 soil laboratories ESP: hosted by JRC Bring together various scattered networks and soil related activities into a common framework, open to all institutions and stakeholders willing to actively contribute to sustainable soil management in Europe. ESP: Regeional implementation plan, with activitiet from data collection and dissemination to data assessment and generating information.
- Country driven approach, provides and builds on synergies on regional/national and global level. Voluntary sharing of SOC data. Countries developed their capacities and put efforts to compile or collect all available soil information at the national level. Ongoing and new reporting needs, step by step more details or other soil threats and functions Step by step guidance including (if needed) a sampling campaign or compline the available SOC data into a map . Country contribution not world area 30% gap filling with available data 2% using soil grids
- Given the cross-sectoral nature of soil issues and the diversity of environmental and socio-economic pressures and governance conditions across Europe, it is not surprising that many different policy instruments at EU and Member State level exist. These instruments either explicitly reference soil threats or soil functions, or implicitly offer some form of protection for soils. Europe has a desire for consistent and interoperable soil monitoring and information systems, to be able to assist in policy-making across borders. The possibility of having a harmonized continental database of soil chemical, physical and biological properties will be crucial not only for its potential research applications, but also for policy development. For these polcieis it is important to know what the status is of the soils (threats and functions), to be able to know what the impact of the policies are and to be able to ahndle according these policies. . Need of information for: a Policies Land use planning and sustainable soil management, hazard assessments c Soil and soil-related research d Data policies: INSPIRE 2. The European soil information system stagnates / stagnation of harmonization and data sharing since the late 90ie environmental policy making, from designing policy frameworks to setting targets, and from policy monitoring and evaluation to communicating to policy-makers and the public. At EU level there for many different strategies and binding measures soil fuctions play a role and need to be protected or sustainably used .These are direct or indirect relations. The need to protect land resources is stated in the EU’s Seventh Environment Action Programme (7th EAP). The 7th EAP also recognizes the importance of the proper knowledge base. Resource Efficient Europe mentions that EU policies have to take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050. This is in line with EU contributions to the Rio+20 target 'land degradation neutral world'. Recently, the European Green Infrastructure and Climate Change Adaption Strategies, in their respective scope, place spatial structure of natural and semi-natural areas (but also other environmental features) at the core of multiple services to societies and economies. Urban areas, regions, and cities belong to such structures; stronger urban-rural cooperation, through efficient multi-scale land use and planning, brings benefits through better management of natural resources (e.g. water supply, flood control) and enhanced provision of services (e.g. public transport, health, recreation).
- ESDAC datasets are organized in some broad categories. A first category contains the European Soil Database (ESDB), datasets that have been derived with the help of the ESDB and general European datasets that contain soil properties. A second category offers data that are related to soil functions (below) & soil threats (erosion, soil organic carbon, landslides, compaction, salinization, soil biodiversity, contaminated sites, soil sealing, etc.) A third category offers soil point data (LUCAS, SPADE, etc) A fourth category contains data that stem from projects. LUCAS: represents the largest harmonized open‐access dataset of topsoil properties available for the European Union at the global scale. EUROSTAT: undertakes regular survey ** INSPIRE = Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Indicators The set has been created so that land and soil indicators become more prominent in the EEA evidence base. This is in line with the increased policy attention that land and soil are receiving, both globally and in Europe. he EEA indicators are designed to answer key policy questions and to support all phases of environmental policy making, from designing policy frameworks to setting targets, and from policy monitoring and evaluation to communicating to policy-makers and the public. Measure, analyze and asses the actual soil condition Determine and execute suitable actions (for prevention or restoration) Monitor the effects of these actions on the soil condition EEA: all soil data management activities are transferred to JRC the European Topic Centre on Urban, Land and Soil systems (ETC/ULS), is supporting the EEA and is embedded and part of EIONET EIONET: supporting monitoring of urban development in Europe, creating seamless European wide spatial reference data and develop and analyse various land related indicators. CORINE programma: land cover Soil functions: "Soil Biomass Productivity maps of grasslands and pasture, of croplands and of forest areas in the European Union (EU27)" "Maps of the Storing and Filtering Capacity of Soils in Europe" "European map of soil suitability to provide a platform for most human activities (EU28)" "Maps indicating the availability of Raw Material from soils in the European Union" "Soil Organic Carbon - Saturation Capacity in Europe" "Maps of preservation capacity of cultural artefacts and buried materials in soils in the EU" "Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas Maps" (map showing a simple index describing the potential level of diversity living in soils on our planet) "Maps of indicators of soil hydraulic properties for Europe" (Water storing capacity of soils in Europe) Soil GHG fluxes using LUCAS soil-DayCent (CO2 and N2O direct soil fluxes in the LUCAS arable points across the EU)
- INSPIRE: Directive aims to create a European Union spatial data infrastructure for the purposes of EU environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. The Directive addresses 34 spatial data themes needed for environmental applications. Based on the definition given by the Directive (2007/2/EC), the scope for the soil theme covers: Soil inventories, providing one-off assessments of soil conditions and/or soil properties at certain locations and at a specific point in time, and allow soil monitoring, providing a series of assessments showing how soil conditions and/or properties change over time. b) Soil mapping, providing a spatial presentation of the properties linked to the soils, including soil types; typically, soil maps are derived with the help of data available in soil inventories. Also other soil related information derived from soil properties, possibly in combination with non-soil data are within the scope.
- Differences in type of information ENVASSO: Environmental Assessment of Soil for Monitoring The ENVASSO project objective was to define a monitoring system, describe its potential implementation and, thus, develop a framework for European soils monitoring. These are factsheets of national networks. These can differ in campaign size, measuring or monitoring etc two types of indicators were relatively easily implemented, those for which networks existed and those that relied on existing remote-sensed data and spatial information. On the other hand, some indicators required inventories that did not exist in all regions or lacked harmonisation, while others were compromised by uncertainties in relating site measurements to estimates over space and time.
- Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU Member States Executes for DG ENV Not all instruments are monitoring instruments. Sometimes regulations, soil management plan, inventory contaminated sites Not complete: on voluntary basis Different number of instruments Instruments not always a soil monitoring tool, but regulation, decrees, register etc Information about: Instrument Institutions responsible Type of instrument Status of instrument Budget Territorial coverage Threats and functions Land classes Monitoring mechanisms and indicators
- Landmark did a gap assessment in current soil monitoring networks across Europe. They assessed soil attributes can be used as indicator for 5 soil fucntions and compared with existing networks. he overall picture highlighted a clearly unbalanced dataset, in which predominantly chemical soil parameters were included, and soil biological and physical attributes were severely under represented. Methods applied across countries for indicators also varied. These can be monitoring and sampling campaigns The white countries are countries that probably have soil data and information but that this informaiton is not publicly or free available. Poland for example has…
- Soilgrids: Croatia, Albania, Andorra, Bosnia, Country: 15 LUCAS: 12
- Soil monitoring network (SMN) Poland example Digital soil suitability map in scale of 1:25 000 is available at IUNG. Data base contains boundaries of soil suitability units – showing land productivity, texture of soil profile, information on relief conditions, water status and overall productivity. General information on soil type is also given. There is over 10 soil profiles with full analytical information on soil texture, soil organic matter, pH, exchangeable cations etc. Extensive work has been done in recent 3 verify accuracy of texture information shown on these soil maps – this exercise was conducted to support delineation of LFA according to new criteria proposed by the EC. Analytical data characterizing soil properties linked to soil polygons on the map allow using of this layer for various modeling exercises. These information resources are extensively used for different research project. Soil databases are available on request, although access is not free of charge. Indeed it is a good question why there is a limited information regarding national monitoring systems and soil databases outside Poland (or other CEE countries) – in my view such data is of a technical nature and often of local relevance – it would be hard to publish information regarding these resources in international peer-reviewed journals – moinitiring and data base development is not a science. Whenever these resources are used in modeling work there are proper references mentioned in papers published, however this does not create a major visibility of the source data used. Indeed most of CEE of countires developed soil suitability maps (according to different methodology) before 1989 transition. It is likely that in some countries shortage of the funding and organizational chaos of early nineties could lead to loss of information – although I am sure that there is archives. It would be good to ask directly in national organizations who have been responsible for soil survey. There is a poor information exchange on international level – there are many projects which are supposed to gather a complete information with limited success. Please see link to FAO below – there is no Poland Slovakia Hungary Slovenia on the list, however according to my knowledge soil maps exist there. http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/regional-and-national-soil-maps-and-databases/en/ I am sure that there is a soil map in Romania – may be not in a digital form – please see the below link: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S2210784316302352/1-s2.0-S2210784316302352-main.pdf?_tid=f4a36b1c-32fe-46c4-8a61-84925511c4f9&acdnat=1541069429_bf7260441ba31d39b8a80d0bf58ff8de
- Loosely based on conclusion by GSP/ESP and confirmed by our study
- Collecting data (representative, quality, functional): Sampling/ modelling, measuring/modelling … Sampling campaign (area, sample density, sampling method), (standarized) analyzing methods background and threshold values Documentation and availability of data and metadata: online/hard copy, public/private (data ownership), actuality Soil information system Visualization of information (maps, charts,…) With/without metadata (methods, uncertainties, scale) With/without policies (e.g. possibility for ATES)
- Assumption for the first: MS need data/information for maintenance of their own national soil policies anyway If there are “blind spots” on the map, there are barrieres that prevent them from sharing data Plus: no discussion about EU imposing measures & Minus: collecting a complete overview of what is available at each MS is not possible Assumptions for 2nd (GSOC approach) is that some countries are not collecting data at this moment. Plus: focussed request and action needed from MS & Minus: MS are problem owners, depending on their efforts (budget, time) Options to approach are: MS provide information MS convert available data to information with help of EU if needed Give guidelines and /provide platform, if MS wants to improve or start data collection on their own Provide possibility for MS to adopt/use EU monitoring (data) sets like LUCAS it they don’t have their own network This applies for both data collection (measurning/monitoring), as well as storage and sharing of the data in data systems
- Desktop- or field study Which indicators are used, e.g.: soil functions, landmark; soil treats, ENVASSO & LUCAS Sampling design; Which indicators are measured with which method Return period (depending on indicator) Representative measurement campaign; sufficient points Site area; depends on homogeneity Sampling strategy and resolution Documentation of sampling campaigns and lab analyses (metadata) Etc.
- Data Sovereignty is the idea that data are subject to the laws and governance structures within the nation it is collected. The concept of data sovereignty is closely linked with data security, cloud computing and technological sovereignty. Unlike technological sovereignty, which is vaguely defined and can be used as an umbrella term in policymaking,[1] data sovereignty is specifically concerned with questions surrounding the data itself.[2] Data sovereignty is usually discussed in two ways: in relation to Indigenous groups and Indigenous autonomy from post-colonial states or in relation to transnational data flow. With the rise of cloud computing, many countries have passed various laws around control and storage of data, which all reflects measures of data sovereignty.[2]
- Modern society has created a surge of information that needs to be well-managed and made accessible How do we survive this data deluge? How do we manage all these data? How can we tell right from wrong? How can we find what we need? How do we face ever increasing data storage costs? Think about information needs!
- the cost of not doing data management can be very high. If complex data is organized properly, we can do incredible things Besides, the cost of not doing data management can be very high. If data are: Well-organized, Documented, Preserved, Accessible Result is: High quality data, Easy to share and re-use in science, Citation and credibility to the researcher, Cost-savings to science
- Data stages of OpenEarth Doesn’t matter what type of data is coming in: data will be converted with scripts (stored with the data) to standardized format and New DQMS requires proper data management: data is quality checked before being converted Users are obliged to enter meta-data upon entering OpenEarth is a complete solution for data management and visualization of data
- Share and reuse data ! OpenEarth is flexible and adaptible, as the used standard or the conversion method can be easily changed. Hence valuable for a system in progression.
- We would like to invite everybody to participate in the afternoon workshop!
- Recomm for land and soil managers, researchers, policy makers and funders of research