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

1. GSP
PILLAR4
Yusuf Yigini, Kostiantyn Viatkin, Isabel Luotto,
Rosa Cuevas

2. PILLAR 4Towards a Global Soil Information System

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. GloSISD E S I G N & D A T A

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. GloSIS – TCP Projects
 Macedonia
 Sudan
 Afghanistan
 Cambodia
 SISLAC (Regional)

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. 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. GSOCmap

14. GSOCmap v1.2
Germany - 3300 Samples, Geomatching

15. GSOCmap v1.5
Germany - 5000 Samples, Geomatching

16. Congo + DR CONGO - GSP Gap Filling
GSOCmap v1.2

17. Congo + DR CONGO - Improved with National Data
GSOCmap v1.5

18. GHANA - Country Submission
GSOCmap v1.2

19. GHANA – Improved BD
GSOCmap v1.5

20. GSOCseqGlobal Soil organic Carbon Sequestration Potential Map

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. 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. • 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