Pillar 1: Presentation of the Implementation Plan | Liesl Wiese, GSP Secretariat
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•197 vues
Global Soil Partnership Plenary Assembly – Sixth Session 11 – 13 June 2018 FAO HQ
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Pillar 1: Presentation of the Implementation Plan | Liesl Wiese, GSP Secretariat
Similaire à Pillar 1: Presentation of the Implementation Plan | Liesl Wiese, GSP Secretariat (20)
Plus de FAO
Plus de FAO (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Pillar 1: Presentation of the Implementation Plan | Liesl Wiese, GSP Secretariat
- 1. Liesl Wiese Pillar 1 Implementation Plan
- 2. Pillar 1… … implementation on the ground Identify appropriate SSM practices, adapt them, implement at appropriate scales Createanenablingenvironment Technical and political barriers Capacity development Monitor SSM implementation Ensure balanced soil fertility management More ha under SSM
- 3. How does Pillar 1 relate to other Pillars? Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5 Pillar 1 SSM Implemented Human, capital, political, financial resources Remove adoption barriers Provide authoritative data to assess progress in SSM implementation Key science and socio- economic data Bridge knowledge gaps Improve and standardize methods for reliable SSM adoption indicators Invest, coop, policy, edu, awareness, extension Data and information Harmonization Research
- 4. Pillar 1 Global Implementation Plan P1 GIP Process Timing P1 writing team Plan of Action: 2nd Plenary Assembly 2014 P1 GIP initiated 13 Feb 2018 (2 months) • Based on recent GSP developments and priorities / RIPs ITPS Endorsement: 30 April 2018 Implementation 2018 – 2022 (5 years) 4 Activities GSP Secretariat ITPS Pillar 1 Chair Pillar 1 Regional Chairs
- 5. SSM best practices Estimated budget: USD 1,020,000 • Bulk budget to support regional implementation • Foundation of most other activities Global guidelines to test soil management practices against SSM definition Global database of SSM best practicesRefine guidelines to regional / national context Regional and local sub- datasets of SSM best practices ITPS Guidance Document on Assessment of SSM
- 6. Regional maps of successful SSM 1. Identify regional/national projects of successful SSM (use guidelines) iSQAPER Pedoclimatic zones Corine LandUse Soil threat 2. Map projects based on: Location Aerial extent Specific site characteristics (regional) Land use Pedoclimatic zones Biomes Land zoning Soil threats Others Map metadata: • Site characteristics • SSM practices • Barriers • Stakeholders 3. Monitor areas under SSM: increasing / decreasing (Link to Pillar 4) Estimated budget: USD 325,000 To be supplemented by national / regional contributions • Showcase success
- 7. Implement WSC and VGSSM 1. Assess performance of GSP partners against WSC (done) 2. Regional and national awareness and capacity development workshops on VGSSM 3. Develop technical manuals for managing the 10 soil threats i.e. Guidelines on soil organic matter management 4. Link to Pillar 2: • Capacity development on SSM practices • Integrate soil governance for soil protection Estimated budget: USD 275,000 Requires national/regional contributions • Provision of workshop facilities • Manpower – workshop arrangement and implementation
- 8. Implement SSM projects 1. Develop comprehensive project proposals 2. Implement SSM project in all regions a. Up-scaling existing projects b. New project concepts Barriers to adoption Develop policy support Capacity development (before/during) Needs assessment to adapt SSM practices Knowledge exchange Develop decision support systems Monitoring of SSM management impact on soil Estimated budget: USD 15,100,000 • Require active national/regional participation in proposal writing (ownership and local context) • Bulk of the budget for implementation (could be seen as seed funding) Map all new projects
- 9. Guidance on assessment of SSM ITPS, May 2018 (Annex to P1 GIP) First step towards assessment of: Economic benefits of SSM for farmers and other land users Goal: Provide guidance on how to assess the sustainability of soil management Soil management is sustainable if the supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services provided by the soil are maintained or enhanced without significantly impairing either the soil functions that enable those services or biodiversity Broadens sustainability assessment to include SM effect on ESS (or nature’s contribution to people, NCP)
- 10. Information required to assess SSM 1. Specification of management 2. Identification of threats to ESS, soil function (SF) and biodiversity (BD) 3. Specification of acceptable levels of threats Threats well established for soil functions. Not fully established for ESS. Preliminary list for 3 primary ESS compiled Question to be addressed: What are the acceptable impacts of human use of soil on ESS, soil functions, and biodiversity?
- 11. Stages of SSM Assessment 1. Compile information on current or proposed management 2. Identify management-related threats to soil-provided ESS, SF, BD 3. Compile science-based info on acceptable levels of threats 4. Compile local knowledge on acceptable levels of threats. 5. Link current or proposed management to identified threats. 6. Compare probable effects of current or proposed management to acceptable levels of threats. 7. Assess socio-economic and cultural implications of current or proposed management measures. 8. Implement changes to management / overcome barriers to adoption of such changes. 9. Recognition of achievement of sustainability. Certification / Financial rewards Government/NGO/Extension Land managers (with above)
- 12. Action by GSP members 1. Support in development of SSM assessment guidelines • In-kind through provision of time of experts • Identification of management practices • Available information on indicators / threat levels 2. Identify and map successful SSM projects • Incentive to showcase national success stories – visibility to donors • Highlight overcoming barriers to adoption – lessons learnt 3. Implement WSC and VGSSM • Organize national workshops • Assess national actions / legislation with VGSSM 4. Implement SSM Projects • Active participation in proposal writing • Provide national context, needs • Take ownership Total budget: USD 16,720,000 Please know and support your focal point.
Notes de l'éditeur
- Pillar 1 PoA Recommendations Identify appropriate SSM practices, adapt them and implement at appropriate scales (cost-benefit) Support sustainable agricultural production by balances soil fertility management and appropriate physical management Assess and address barriers to adoption (technically and politically) Monitor SSM implementation Capacity development to promote SSM adoption
- I inserted this only in the presentation so it can be discussed if necessary. Mainly to show that by comparison the global budget is relatively low. Feel free to keep it or not.
- This definition has two distinct parts. First, to be sustainable, soil management must maintain or enhance the ecosystem services provided by the soil (which are summarized in Table 1.2, SWSR). Although all services provided by the soil are important, the WSC recognizes that “The balance between the supporting and provisioning services for plant production and the regulating services the soil provides for water quality and availability and for atmospheric greenhouse gas composition is a particular concern.” Put more simply, soil management that maintains or increases yields but which leads to unacceptably high greenhouse gas emissions or contamination of water bodies is, by definition, unsustainable. The second part of the definition states that management that leads to maintenance or enhancement of services is not sustainable if it causes significant impairment of either soil functions or biodiversity. This part of the definition is more similar to traditional definitions of SSM insofar as it is soil-centric, rather than focusing on the effects of soil management on the surrounding environment. The NCP framework recognizes both the beneficial and detrimental contributions of ecosystems to people and re-balances the importance of culture vis-à-vis natural science and economics. The ecosystem services discussed in our document can be readily mapped to the NCP categories
- The object being assessed is the management that is in place or is being proposed for a specific area. For agriculture, the management regime may include considerations of tillage, crop rotation, residue management, nutrient and manure inputs, drainage, timing of farm operations, and various pest control measures. For forestry or agroforestry the regime may include specific issues such as harvest methods, site preparation for replanting, and log handling methods as well as some of the nutrient and pest control measures. These lists are not meant to be exhaustive but only to illustrate the diversity of measures to be considered. In some cases, the measures can be directly observed (tillage, residue management, crop selection); in others record keeping by land managers is required (e.g. pesticide regime, fertilizer inputs, timing of field operations). The Land Utilization Type classification presented in the FAO’s (1976) Framework for Land Evaluation specifies many of the elements that need to be assessed. The most fully developed threats to ESS system is the Agri-Environmental Indicators reporting system implemented by the OECD (STATS.OECD.ORG).
- The assessment of sustainability of soil management would result in two general outcomes. In the first, the soil management currently being applied could be assessed to determine if it is sustainable. This would occur if, for example, a land manager desired to be certified as practicing SSM. If the current management was deemed to be sustainable (i.e., stage 6 showed that no identified threats were operating at unacceptable levels) and was economically and socially acceptable (i.e., stage 7) then no changes to management would be required. The same would be true for proposed management changes to an existing management regime (e.g. a change in tillage implements or in fertilization application) that passed stage 6 and 7 – no barriers to implementation exist and the change could be implemented. In the second outcome, the current or proposed management contains practices that are deemed to be unsustainable in stage 6. In this case, alternative practices would need to be evaluated for both their effect on the threat and their social, economic, and cultural acceptability.