Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

GSP Pillar 4

376 views

Published on

6th European Soil Partnership (ESP) Plenary meeting
28-29 March 2019
FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy
Yusuf Yigini, Rosa Cuevas Corona

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

GSP Pillar 4

  1. 1. GSP PILLAR4 Yusuf Yigini, Kostiantyn Viatkin, Isabel Luotto, Rosa Cuevas
  2. 2. PILLAR 4Towards a Global Soil Information System
  3. 3. GSP Pillar 4 essentially addresses the development of an enduring and authoritative global system to monitor and forecast the condition of the Earth’s soil resources. PILLAR 1 PILLAR 2 PILLAR 3 PILLAR 5
  4. 4. Governance and Main ActorsPILLAR 4 • GSP PA - GSP Plenary Assembly • GSP Secretariat • ITPS - Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils • INSII - International Network of Soil Information Institutions • P4WG Pillar 4 Working Group (+IUSS GSM WG) • SDF Soil Data Facility
  5. 5. Pillar 4 & GloSISPILLAR 4  Owned by the member countries  Federation of National Soil Information Systems  Co-operative design, actively involving all stakeholders  Supports countries in developing their own soil information systems.  Develop and improve capacities at national level
  6. 6. GloSIS FederationPILLAR 4  National Autonomy  Decentralised Resource management  Modernising existing SIS using new technologies  Better interoperability  More consistent and accurate global soil data products  Improved visibility of national SIS enhanced usability. Pros
  7. 7. GloSIS FederationPILLAR 4  Challenging to coordinate efforts  Complex and challenging technical environment  Difficult to overcome political and data ownership issues  Requires consensus on architecture, business rules and semantics among disparate groups Cons Solution GSP Secretariat Soil Data Facility GSP Data Policy GSP PA, GSP, SDF, P5, P4, INSII
  8. 8. GloSISD E S I G N & D A T A
  9. 9. GloSIS - Design  GSP SDF (ISRIC), GSP Secretariat, INSII, Pillar 4 WG, Pillar 5 WG, Soil Information Experts.  3 Participation Levels (Ad-hoc, Reference, Support Implementation)  CountrySIS Framework defines the technical specifications, implementation manuals, tools and software. STATUS: GloSIS Design Document, T1/T2 SPDB Specs, CountrySIS Concept Note
  10. 10. GloSIS – TCP Projects  Macedonia  Sudan  Afghanistan  Cambodia  SISLAC (Regional)
  11. 11. GloSIS – Data Products GSOCmap Status: Launched December, 2017 > v1.0 >>>>>>> V1.2.0 - February 2018 >>>>>> v1.5 – May 2019 ) GSOER Status: Working Document, Concept Note GSSmap Status: Technical Specs GSOCseq Status: Technical Specs GBSmap Status: Concept Note, Strategy Document SoilSTAT Status: Concept Note to be presented – GSPA 7th
  12. 12. GSOCmap • V1.2.0 (Current) V1.5.0 (May 2019) • 30+ New/Improved Maps • Global Validation Campaign • (Non Gov. Non INSII Data Sources) • Scientific Article • (Nature - Under Review) • Regional Harmonisation Workshops • (Europe, Central and South America)
  13. 13. GSOCmap
  14. 14. GSOCmap v1.2 Germany - 3300 Samples, Geomatching
  15. 15. GSOCmap v1.5 Germany - 5000 Samples, Geomatching
  16. 16. Congo + DR CONGO - GSP Gap Filling GSOCmap v1.2
  17. 17. Congo + DR CONGO - Improved with National Data GSOCmap v1.5
  18. 18. GHANA - Country Submission GSOCmap v1.2
  19. 19. GHANA – Improved BD GSOCmap v1.5
  20. 20. GSOCseqGlobal Soil organic Carbon Sequestration Potential Map
  21. 21. Global assessment of soil organic carbon sequestration potential (GSOCseq) January – March 2019 - Draft reviewed by GSP SOC Advisory Group: • Prof. Dr. Keith Paustian – Colorado State University • Prof. Dr. Peter Smith – University of Aberdeen • Prof. Dr. Thomas Crowther – ETH Zurich • Prof. Dr. Rattan Lal - Ohio State University • ITPS October 2018 - Draft – Technical Specifications (reviewed by ITPS) November 2018 – INSII - Fourth Working Session of the International Network of Soil Information Institutions December 2018 - A revised version was produced April – May 2019 - New version available (to be sent to INSII for final review) June 2019 – December 2020 – Mapping process
  22. 22. Summary. Comments from Experts • Key principles should govern the work: • careful coordination of data and analytical methods; • same data sources; • same carbon model and assumptions within a model. • Not feasible to have semi-independent efforts (country-driven analyses) and yield consistent results. A modelling team is needed. • Sensitivity and uncertainty should be established. • Inclusion of machine learning models: improve accuracy of predictions. • Definition of a realistic and feasible 'recommended land use and management practices’ is the main challenge. • December 2019: not realistic deadline
  23. 23. • Why Bottom-up? Current and improved ‘Land use/management’ inputs required to run models are provided by contry-specific experts. National experts/analysts have an essential role in determining current and feasible ‘improved’ practices; and in interpreting and supervising results. • Why Top-down? Modeling, data analsysis and Digital Mapping tasks are to be performed by a dedicated team of regional experts following a standard protocol, supervised and guided by Top experts. Coordinated Technical Team • GSP SOC Advisory Group: General technical guidance and supervision. • Team of Regional experts: protocol development, modelling and digital mapping operations, data analysis. • GSP: protocol development, data harmonization, technical assistance, coordination. • Country-specific experts: gather inputs/activity data required for C-models; discuss and supervise preliminary and final results. Proposal… A ‘Mixed’ technical approach: Bottom-up / Top-down

×