The document discusses harmonization of soil measurements and methods within the European region as part of the Global Soil Partnership's Pillar 5 on harmonization. It provides an overview of the current status and challenges regarding soil description, classification, mapping, analysis, indicators, and applied methods in Europe. Several countries have made progress in converting national soil data to common reference systems, but challenges remain around resolving coding issues, applying methods to new and older data, and ensuring routine application of standards. The document calls for a European implementation plan and active partners to help realize the goals of harmonized soil characterization within the region.

1. 1
Harmonization of methods and
measurements (GSP Pillar 5)
ESP, Rome, 17-18 March 2015
Rainer Baritz

2. 2
ESP, Rome, 17-18 March 2015
Pillar 5 writing team:
Chair: Rainer Baritz
o Asia: Hakki Erdogan, Kazumichi Fujii and Yusuke Takata
o Europe: Marco Nocita, Bernd Bussian and Niels Batjes
o North America: Jon Hempel
o South West Pacific: Peter Wilson
o GSP Secretariat: Ronald Vargas
− Compiled after expert registration through GSP web site;
2 experts dropped out; 4 additional external reviewers
participated
− Chair: also Pillar 4 writing team; cross-link

3. − PoA proposes the development of an
over-arching system for harmonized
soil characterization
− Back-up for Pillar 1 (indicators) and Pillar 4 (data products)
− 6 recommendations:
Context Pillar 5 PoA
Plan of Action (PoA)
Harmonization provides the ability to describe,
sample, classify, and analyze the soil in a way that
allows the combined use of the resulting data on a
scientifically sound basis. Soil data and
information derives from many sources, across
time, projects, agencies, and countries.
Definition

4. Overview Pillar 5 PoA: easy structure
1. Harmonization concept
2. Products in support of Harmonization
Principles for harmonizationRecommendation 1
Recommendation 2
Definitions
Key areas
Recommendation 3, 4, 5, 6
3. Governance as closely as possible to Pillar 5
Implementation procedures
in the regional partnerships

5. Develop an over-arching system for harmonized soil
characterization as the central objective of Pillar 5. The
system builds on and merges existing approaches to
describe, classify, map, analyse and interpret soils.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
GSP
Harmonization
Concept
Definitions
Key areas of
harmonization
Principles for
harmonization
Recommendation 2

6. Recommendations
Key areas of
harmonization
soil profiles, soil
classification and
soil maps
Recommendation 3
Soil sampling and
analysis
Interoperability - Exchange
of digital soil information
Interpretation and evaluation
Recommendation 4
Recommendation 5
• Reference system for soil
profile description
• Reference system for soil
classification
• Reference system for soil
mapping
Global Implementation
Report
Good Practice field sampling, sample
preparation and measurement
Global soil information model
Recommendation 6
 Catalogue of soil health indicators
 Method data base of pedo-transfer
rules and functions
1
2
3
4

7. Aim of the Implementation Plan at global level
 Develop a framework for uniting the regional
harmonization activities: reference material, good
practice examples, pathway for partnering, sharing of
facilities, global guidance for harmonization principles
 Why global?
− to facilitate the fitting together of the regional efforts
and products (…Pillar 4-products)
− To develop and implement some global-level rules
and procedures: extended and improved ISO-
standards and cook-book-style support, e.g. soil
information model

8. Context European
Regional Partnership

9. General background
− Much involvement of European
experts in standardization
IUSS WGs
− Experiences from national and
European harmonization projects
− Experiences from European and other
international networks
⇒ Significant basis and progress on harmonization in
Europe
ESBN Forest Soil Expert Panel
TC 190 Soil Quality
- Soil
− European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) and European
Environment Agency (EEA) with expert networks

10. 1.a Soil Description
European Soil Bureau Network: Transforming of nationally
defined properties from local data bases into „European
format“
1,897 complete soil profiles, which are linked to 1,077
STUs (35 % of EU-15)
Status
Challenges Pillar 5
Many coding issues not solved due to lack of measured
and harmonized soil profile data sets (e.g. texture)

11. Target: FAO Soil Profile Description (tbd)
JRC/ESBN
1: 1Mio soil map
Belgium
Finland
etc.
Status: several countries have
conversion methods/reference tables
Challenge: adapt to possibly new targets;
many countries lack such methods
1.a Soil Description: Example soil texture

12. 1.b Soil Classification – WRB in Europe
Target: International soil classification
system World Reference Base for
Soil Resources (WRB)
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
CZ
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Portugal
Scotland/N. Ireland/
Rep. Ireland
Slovakia
Slovenia
[GS Soil test cases]
Status: Many countries have transformation-/
conversion-procedures developed
Challenges:
− prototypes: hardly applied to large
national data bases
− national approaches are at a fairly
low classification level

13. 1.c Soil mapping
Target: Harmonized Pillar 4 mapping scheme
Status:
Challenges:
− Content-related and geometric
impurities
− Higher resolutions: not
harmonized/national gaps
− “Harmonize” national
maps for new global
soil map
− European soil map 1:1 Mio
− Vast amounts of national maps
(differ for scales and content)
− INSPIRE, but not related to content
− Manual 1:250k soil mapping

14. 2. Soil analysis
Status:
ICP Forests/FSEP: MANUAL on soil sampling and analysis (mostly ISO)
Intercalibration exercises 1992, 1993, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009
(2007: 42 Parameters, 5 samples; 51 labs registered)
National correlations: Few examples:
− Wet oxidation – dry combustion (various countries)
− different extractions (BaCl2 vs. NH4Cl)
− Comparisons of acid extractions (e.g. Aqua regia vs. HF)
− particle-size analysis: Koehn pipette vs. X-ray granulometry
National handbooks: Few examples:
VDLUFA 1991, GAFA 2005/2009, Van Ranst et al. (1999)
Calibration exercises ...
Challenges:
− European representation of harmonized analytical data sets is
extremely patchy/lack of comparable monitoring results
− Application of „central methods“ to new and older data sets is
difficult
− Network of reference labs needed/capacity building offers
− Reference samples/Reference data sets/method libraries

15. ISO tested via network
Multiple ways
to store data
3. Interoperability – exchange of digital soil data
Status: INSPIRE, ISO 28258 (lead: Europe)
National experiences exist (GS Soil)
Challenges:
− Ensure compatability of standards with national
approaches
− Ensure routine applications
− Develop soil thesaurus
− Build distributed system

16. 4. Indicators (and applied methods)
− Many national and European initiatives, e.g.
EEA/EIONET-Soil/European research: ENVASSO
− Various extensions of existing indicator
sets ongoing: Sustainable Development, Climate
Change
Status:
Challenges:
− Compile and harmonize indicators
− Develop criteria, baselines „good
status“, thresholds
− Improve information about national
systems in place

17. 4. (Indicators and) applied methods
-95 soil types
-1777 soil profiles
Hypres Database of Hydraulic
Properties of European Soils
Models are needed to estimate parameters difficult
to measure, to convert between analy. methods,
and to extrapolate into areas with scarce data:
pedo-transfer functions (PTF)
pedotransfer rules (PTR)
Catalogue of agreed and coordinated methods
(requires testing and validation with representative
harmonized data sets…)
Background:
Status:
Various national methods are in
place; coordination in place for soil hydrology; all
other fields not coordinated (national results are not
comparable!)
Challenges:

18.  A European implementation plan is needed (e.g. incl. ideas
for a network of reference labs)
 Existing efforts and project results are under-utilized due to
lack of financed follow-up
 Involvement in standards-development is often voluntary
 Subsequently, active ESP partners are needed to success-
fully implement; very active and well-staffed European data
centre/node with coordination and support tasks needed
Positive side effects:
 GSP provides opportunity to fill long-existing data and
knowledge gaps
 Harmonized information allows boost for innovation and
cross-border understanding, especially in rural areas
Conclusions

19. Thank you for your attention!
rainer.baritz@bgr.de