1

Global Soil Partnership: Accomplishments, Challenges and Way Forward A Stocktaking review April 2020 Independent review team: S V Divvaakar Nataliia Gavryliuk

2

Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4

Value Addition and Key Achievements .................................................................................. 4

The Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) ........................................................ 5

GSP Secretariat ...................................................................................................................... 6

Resource mobilization ........................................................................................................... 6

Results at the regional and national level ............................................................................. 7

Looking forward ..................................................................................................................... 8

2. Background ...................................................................................................................... 10

3. Findings ............................................................................................................................ 11

Value Addition and Key Achievements ................................................................................ 11

The Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils ................................................................. 16

Engagement with relevant UN Conventions and other bodies ........................................... 17

Resource mobilization ......................................................................................................... 18

GSP Secretariat .................................................................................................................... 20

Results at the regional and national level ........................................................................... 23

Regional Soil Partnerships ................................................................................................ 23

National Soil Partnerships .................................................................................................... 26

4. Looking forward ............................................................................................................... 30

Structure .............................................................................................................................. 30

Financing and Programmatic Resource Mobilization .......................................................... 35

Institutionalization of the GSP ............................................................................................. 36

Regional Support Mechanisms ............................................................................................ 40

Annex 1. List of Documents reviewed ............................................................................. 43

Annex 2. Survey Results ................................................................................................... 45

Annex 3. List of GSP partners/members and Secretariat Interviewed ............................ 56

Annex 4. Stocktaking Review Approach Outline ............................................................. 57

3

Acronyms CACILM Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management CARM Corporate Areas for Resource Mobilization CBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity CCLM Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters CESRA Centre of Excellence on Soil Research in Asia CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research COAG Committee on Agriculture ES Economic and Social Development (FAO Department) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GLOSIS Global Soil Information System GLOSOLAN Global Soil Laboratories Network GSOC Global Soil Organic Carbon GSP Global Soil Partnership ICCSUMF International Code of Conduct on Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilizers INBS International Network on Black Soils INSII International Network of Soil information Institutions INSAS International Network on Salt- Affected Soils IPBES Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITPS Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils LADA Land Degradation Assessment LATSOLAN Latin America Soil Laboratories Network LDRA Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment RIP Regional Implementation Plans RSP Regional Soil Partnerships SDG Sustainable Development Goals SISLAC Latin America and Caribbean Soil Information System SLA Soil Leadership Academy SPI Science Policy Interface of the UNCCD SSM Sustainable Soil Management SWSR Status of the World Soil Resources TCP Technical Cooperation Project UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VGSSM Voluntary Guidelines on Sustainable Soil Management WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies WSC World Soil Charter WSD World Soil Day

4

1. Executive Summary

1. In response to the suggestion by the 7th session of the Global Soil Partnership (GSP) Plenary Assembly (PA)1 held in June 2019, the GSP Secretariat has commissioned this stocktaking exercise with the aim of identifying progress against the key objectives of the partnership. Among other dimensions of the analysis, focus had to be placed on results achieved at all levels, as well as possible avenues for enhanced impact and consolidation of activities.

2. Initiated in January 2020, the stocktaking exercise had to be conducted in the most part amidst the Covid-19 crisis, hence use was made of an extensive online stakeholder survey involving over 500 respondents, and in-depth Skype-based interviews with over 40 persons closely involved in the GSP implementation and governance. Guidance on methodological aspects was provided by the FAO’s Office of Evaluation.

3. The analysis addressed in particular four specific areas: a) GSP’s value addition and key achievements at the global, regional and national levels; b) the efficacy of its structural arrangements and procedures; c) success in the enhancement of partnerships and resource mobilization; and d) major challenges and constraints experienced in seeking to support key international development objectives of direct pertinence to soils, in particular those in “Agenda 2030”.

Value Addition and Key Achievements 4. Since its coming into operation in late 2012, it appears clearly that the GSP has established itself as a major platform where global soil issues and solutions are concretely addressed by multiple stakeholders. There was strong agreement that the Global Soil Partnership was instrumental in bringing soils back into the international development agenda, especially by enhancing and disseminating scientific and economic information on conditions, degradation and potential limitations of soils and by generating more widespread awareness of the importance of soils in attaining sustainable development goals. Hence, one of the areas of key value addition was to bring this large body of evidence to the attention of policy makers and pertinent fora. The GSP’s knowledge products and advocacy briefs are deemed to have consistently emphasized the economic, social and environmental consequences and costs of neglecting soils management and the need for policy actions at national and international level.

5. The GSP was also instrumental in filling critical gaps in terms of organized soil information systems at global, regional and national levels, and effective indicators to monitor the state of soils, putting special emphasis on standardization and harmonization.

6. The GSP most salient achievements and outputs include: the issuance of the – first ever - State of the World’s Soil Resources Report; the endorsement of World Soil Day (5 December) and the International Year of Soils 2015 by the UN General Assembly; in terms of policy and operational instruments: the revision of the World Soil Charter (WSC), the adoption of Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (VGSSM), the International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilizers, the Global Soil Organic 1 http://www.fao.org/3/ca5983en/ca5983en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/ca5983en/ca5983en.pdf

5

Carbon Map and many others; the establishment of several international scientific or technical networks such as: the International Network on Black Soils (INBS), the International Network of Soil Information Institutions (INSII), the Global Soil Laboratory Network (GLOSOLAN) and the International Network on Salt-Affected Soils (INSAS); and the convening of particularly well attended symposia on key soil issues and dimensions of sustainable soil management. The online survey of stakeholders showed high levels of appreciation for the usefulness of these and other products and information exchange platforms. The above achievements were accompanied where pertinent by substantial capacity development activities benefiting a broad range of institutions and individuals in many countries, covering in particular training and in some cases provision of necessary hardware and software, on digital soil mapping, soil organic carbon mapping, soil salinity mapping and more generally sustainable soil management.

The Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) 7. The 27-member ITPS was confirmed as the main foundation of GSP’s technical standing, while being at the core of numerous global knowledge products and guidance materials developed under the GSP auspices. The expertise and neutrality vested in the ITPS, via its widely representative selection process and its independence (members serving on a three-year term with pro bono engagement) bring due credibility to the GSP initiatives and outputs.

8. Besides providing the necessary scientific and technical underpinnings to the GSP work, the ITPS also serves as a bridge with other relevant mechanisms of direct relevance to soils, especially the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). In effect, given ITPS’s explicit mandate to provide scientific and technical advice to other international organizations and bodies, the GSP Secretariat and the ITPS succeeded in establishing structured collaboration arrangements with the Science and Policy Interface of the UNCCD, Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) of the UNCBD, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Annual Global Symposia based on recognized soil threats have supported thematic engagement of these bodies as well as substantial numbers of stakeholders (addressing so far: Soil Organic Carbon, Soil Pollution, Soil Erosion and Soil Biodiversity with several other important topics in the pipeline).

9. However, although due efforts have been made to engage with other key actors with interest in soils, it has not always been easy for the GSP and the ITPS to maximize synergies. There are, at times, challenges in finding a common ground or in agreeing on mutually supporting approaches.

10. Another finding from the present review lies in concerns over the rapidly increasing workload of the ITPS and the limited time and financial resources to respond effectively to ever-growing requests. Members underlined the need for sufficient advance notice to undertake the necessary consultations on technical documents to be endorsed by the ITPS, and also for sufficient access to online collaboration tools to cope with pressing workloads and to provide quality inputs. A more realistic plan of engagement for the ITPS was required, so that the Panel could give its stamp of technical approval and quality assurance in an effective manner.

6

11. The growing momentum of attention to the soils agenda and attendant needs in terms of support to manifold activities agreed by the PA and the ITPS have also led to a steep rise in workloads for the Secretariat and the ITPS; at times boundaries between the ITPS and the Secretariat in doing justice to requests may have been unclear.

12. Beyond the ITPS itself, it must also be stressed that for virtually any dimension of the GSP work, the ‘voluntary’ feature of the Partnership does put limits to the extent of engagement and accountability for participants, and this needs to be addressed through appropriate changes, including possible consideration of an enhanced statutory recognition of the GSP.

GSP Secretariat 13. More specifically as regards the Secretariat, the present review has ascertained that stakeholders were unanimous in their high appreciation for its effectiveness, to the extent that the Secretariat is often being perceived as the prime driver of the Partnership. This applied inter alia to the Secretariat’s work in servicing the Plenary Assembly, organizing Global Symposia, supporting World Soil Day activities as well as the coordination of production of knowledge products, and in ensuring two-way communications, advocacy and reporting.

14. The role of the Secretariat in supporting the work of the various Working groups set up by the Pillars, ITPS, Symposia and the Regional Soil Partnerships is also well appreciated. However, as noted above, the boundaries between the ITPS and the Secretariat are not always clear, with perceptions of sporadic encroachments, for instance in commissioning external expertise for some outputs that could not be undertaken within the ITPS agreed work-plans. These have implications for the ITPS in remaining the prime authoritative technical voice on global soil issues not only in the context of the GSP but also in the sought-after close cooperation with other relevant mechanisms.

Resource mobilization 15. Against a tentative resource envelope of USD 60 million specified for the Healthy Soils Multi-Partner Platform, the GSP could only generate so far extra-budgetary resources of 11.8 million, about 19.6% of the target. Nevertheless, there has been steady improvement in resource mobilization and delivery, with expenditure of over USD 3.5 million a year in the 2018-2019 biennium, which is twice the average yearly delivery of USD 1.52 million in the 2013-2017 period. The financial contributions came from the European Union, the Russian Federation, Germany, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Thailand and Iceland as well as private sector sources, i.e. PhosAgro and the International Fertilizers Association. Notably various countries and institutions provided in-kind support.

16. Although the GSP embodies a potentially large partnership, the task of resource mobilization has primarily rested so far with the Secretariat. FAO’s Technical Cooperation Projects (TCPs) and a few donor-supported initiatives have provided the financial resources for the GSP, besides in-kind contributions from partners and countries. Although the basic documents which led to GSP establishment duly stress that each partner should contribute with different inputs to the successful implementation of activities, there is insufficient clarification on resource mobilization responsibilities of partners, especially modalities of ensuring due accountability and utilization of resources raised from various channels, as the GSP is not a legal contracting entity. While regional implementation plans for comprehensive

7

soil management were formulated, concerted resource mobilization efforts at regional level to support them are still lacking in the structure.

17. The Secretariat’s role in resource mobilization via the Healthy Soils Multi-Partner Platform, and Technical Cooperation Projects (funded from FAO core-resources) does not appear to be fully understood. In the absence of due consultations and clear directions on resource mobilization roles and approaches, there are perceptions that the GSP is an “FAO-captive” initiative and that the search for opportunities of resource mobilization and technical support delivery somehow lies exclusively with FAO. It needs to be explicitly clarified that within the present structural arrangements, no entity other than FAO can enter into legal and financial agreements – as the GSP is not a legal contracting entity. Unless a viable alternative to the strong institutional home that FAO provides to the GSP can be established, these perceptions need to be rectified. A more concerted view on the division of roles and responsibilities among key technical and resource partners is important for the GSP as country demands for support increase steadily.

Results at the regional and national level 18. In considering the GSP-induced work at regional and national levels, there is widespread agreement that the good results at the global level (for instance in developing knowledge products, standards and guidance for sustainable soil management) have not yet been translated into sufficient action at those levels.

19. Respondents strongly agreed that the Regional Soil Partnerships (RSPs) should be the main implementing channels in translating the GSP generated global knowledge and tools to support countries own endeavours. However, there was a considerably greater level of uncertainty on useful contributions of the RSPs so far to the propagation of soil conservation and sustainable management practices.

20. The status of the RSPs through activities and projects is very heterogeneous as some RSPs are more active than others. This is somehow related to the availability of funded activities and in great manner of the active role of the Chair and the regional Secretariats, though not available in all RSPs.

21. The dominant perception (of respondents consulted in the survey and interviews) is that the GSP not performing to its full potential at those levels is due in large measure to limitations inherent in structural weaknesses (the absence of secretariats in some regions, and the two-year terms of Chairpersons) and ineffective regional and national engagement mechanisms.

22. In effect, a major design weakness of the RSPs was probably the expectation of substantial pro bono engagement. However, the RSP structures need to have firm resources and budgets at their disposal to implement work programmes and agreed activities cannot be expected to be carried out solely on a voluntary basis. Approvals from parent country institutions have been difficult as the engagements are not exclusively on behalf of the sponsoring country. RSPs have also largely operated in isolation from the FAO regional offices, and thus were seemingly unable to draw on potential synergies in programme design, resource mobilization and implementation.

8

23. National Soil Partnerships (NSPs) were not specified in the original design of the GSP and interested countries have sought different approaches to mobilize and engage relevant actors at national level. The GSP Secretariat has sought to help by issuing guidelines on the creation and consolidation of NSPs.

24. Challenges observed by the review relate to the effectiveness of National Focal Points appointed in interested countries to facilitate participation in GSP work, and their insufficient involvement in GSP activities including interaction with the Secretariat and the FAO Country offices. Clearly, a key factor at the national level towards successful transformation is ensuring government ownership and leadership of comprehensive soil improvement programmes, with articulation of targets and resource commitments. The apparent disconnect between the GSP structures and FAO's regional and country offices needs to be addressed, with a view to enhancing use of the global knowledge base for soil governance and sustainable soil management. GSP partners are strongly invited to discuss practical ways to strengthen the RSP cum NSP structure and processes and take account of the lessons learnt after seven years of operation.

25. Within a programmatic approach, it would be useful to discuss the National Focal Point roles and how a new cadre of national programme leaders could fully support and coordinate respective country actions under ‘comprehensive soil management programmes’ linked to SDG, CBD, UNFCC and UNCCD targets.

Looking forward 26. The GSP has come a long distance since its formal establishment by the FAO Council at the end of 2012, reaching a juncture where it needs to recalibrate its strategy moving from what could be called a global positioning phase highly justified thus far, to full priority to concrete actions (including use of tools developed in this early phase) on the ground to assist countries in reaping full benefits from sustainable soil management practices. This will call for updated modalities of engagement and financing, with major attention to strengthening national support mechanisms. Results frameworks for soil governance and management will need to be aligned more explicitly to the targets and indicators listed under Agenda 2030 and other international agreements and conventions.

27. The following recommendations are offered for consideration by GSP partners.

9

Recommendation 1: The Secretariat and ITPS should embark on the formulation of a revamped GSP Action Framework under the mantle: ‘Healthy Soils to meet SDGs, Biodiversity and Climate Change Goals’, including transforming the current Pillars into Outcome Areas for Soil Health. The framework could articulate required changes for action at global and national/regional level and illustrate cross cutting delivery mechanisms under the above Outcome Areas. Specific work streams could be around major soil threats or issues, e.g. soil degradation, recarbonization, erosion, pollution, soil productivity, while identifying core partners. Recommendation 2: Recognize two distinct functions within the Secretariat: a Programme unit and a Resource Mobilization unit in order to formulate and support implementation of a portfolio of cogent projects and interact with resource providers more systematically. These units should develop standard templates for programme proposals based on an agreed theory of change and GSP’s comparative advantages. These templates can be used for formulation of comprehensive soil management programmes, and also to support segmented resource mobilization - with separate funding windows for global knowledge and policy consensus initiatives and national programmes.

Recommendation 3: Undertake consultations involving the relevant departments up to the senior leadership of FAO, on the prospects for elevating the GSP to a more formal statutory body or subcommittee under the aegis of COAG and submit the necessary background documents for consideration by COAG and further organs as appropriate. The background documents should delineate how the new body would retain and reinforce the so far beneficial partnership features of the GSP, obviate the limitations inherent in its ‘voluntary’ nature and specify how the essential core costs would be met. Given the timelines for the eventual conversion into a statutory body, the GSP should also seek firm commitments from FAO for the continuation of sufficient levels of funding until the process is successfully completed.

Recommendation 4: Revamp the present regional and national structural arrangements, building closer links to FAO’s own decentralized structures, and establish Centres of Excellence (hosted by interested countries) within the revamped structure which could be tasked inter alia with formulating resource mobilization plans covering national, regional and global cooperation requirements.

Recommendation 5. The GSP should also prepare Partnership Framework Agreements with key international conventions and organizations, especially UNCCD, UNEP, UNCBD and UNFCCC, which would expand on the present cooperation levels, and specify joint programme design, monitoring and to the extent feasible, implementation at the national level, using the combined field presence and country focal point networks of all these entities.

10

2. Background

1. The Global Soil Partnership (GSP) was established by the FAO Council at the end of 2012 following a recommendation by the FAO High-level External Committee on the Millennium Development Goals and after due deliberation by FAO’s Committee on Agriculture (COAG) to fulfil the need for a unified and authoritative global mechanism specifically focused on soils, in order to coordinate efforts at all levels - global, regional and national - and pool limited resources to guarantee the many contributions of soil resources to food security and key ecosystem services, including climate change adaptation and mitigation. 2

2. The GSP is a voluntary initiative and does not create any legally binding rights or obligations for its members or any other entities. It is conceived as an interactive and responsive partnership, based on the principle of voluntary participation, and is open to governments, regional organizations, soil institutions and other stakeholders with interest in soils at various levels.

3. The GSP vision is: to improve global governance of the planet’s limited soil resources in order to guarantee healthy and productive soils for a food secure world as well as sustain other essential ecosystem services on which our livelihoods and societies depend, including water regulation and supply of clean water, climate regulation, biodiversity conservation and cultural services. And its mission is: to develop capacities, build on best available science, and facilitate/contribute to the exchange of knowledge and technologies among stakeholders, existing multilateral environmental agreements, and technical and scientific bodies for sustainable management of soil resources at all levels with a view to enhancing food security, protecting ecosystem services.

4. The GSP work is organized under five pillars of action, with action plans for each pillar to address specific areas.

• Pillar 1. Promote sustainable management of soil resources for soil protection, conservation and sustainable productivity.

• Pillar 2. Encourage investment, technical cooperation, policy, education awareness and extension in soil.

• Pillar 3. Promote targeted soil research and development focusing on identified gaps and priorities and synergies with related productive, environmental and social development actions.

• Pillar 4. Enhance the quantity and quality of soil data and information: data collection (generation), analysis, validation, reporting, monitoring and integration with other disciplines.

• Pillar 5. Harmonize methods, measurements and indicators for the sustainable management and protection of soil resources.

5. The major problems identified to be addressed through the GSP pillars are: outdated, limited and fragmented soil information; limited evidence base to support decisions for appropriate land use and management practices; thematic and geographic fragmentation of

2 Healthy Soils Facility Programme document.

11

soil research and capacity development; decline of soil-related training and extension services; inadequate investments in soil conservation and restoration of degraded soils, and the need for coordinated soil policies and strategies.

6. By virtue of its being hosted at FAO under the auspices of the Committee on Agriculture, FAO members (194 states, 1-member organization and 2 associate members) are de facto partners of the GSP, while registered institutions can also join it. As soil issues cut across multiple sectors, the GSP also established linkages with other key institutions and organizations, notably: UNCCD, UN CBD, UNFCCC, Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system and other bodies, according to their mandates and comparative advantages.

7. At the seventh meeting of the GSP Plenary Assembly (PA)3 held in June 2019, the PA suggested that “after 7 years since its establishment it would be appropriate to conduct an evaluation of the GSP performance including the request of formalization of the GSP”. In response to this request, the GSP Secretariat has commissioned this stocktaking exercise with the aim of identifying progress against the key objectives of the partnership, with a particular focus on results achieved at country level, as well as with the intention to explore possible avenues for further consolidation of the partnership’s work.

8. The stocktaking exercise was initiated in January 2020, and, in view of the Covid-19 crisis, relied extensively on desk reviews (Annex 1), online surveys administered to 576 persons (Annex 2) and in-depth interview requests sent to 64 persons (Annex 3) closely involved in the GSP’s implementation and governance. In all, 128 responses were received to the online survey and Skype-based interviews were held with 36 GSP individuals (24 persons did not respond, and 4 declined to be interviewed). The review team also met with staff of the GSP secretariat and with FAO senior managers overseeing it (Deputy Director-General for Climate Change and Natural Resources, and the Director, Land and Water Division). Guidance on methodological aspects was provided by FAO’s Office of Evaluation. Details of the process are provided in Annex 4.

9. The stocktaking covered four specific areas: a) GSP’s value addition and key achievements at the global, regional and national levels; b) the efficacy of its structures and procedures; c) partnerships and resource mobilization; and d) major challenges and constraints towards its engagement in support of Agenda 2030 and other international development objectives.

3. Findings Value Addition and Key Achievements 10. Since inception, the GSP has become an important platform where global soil issues and solutions are discussed and addressed by multiple stakeholders. The stock taking review ascertained respondent views on the key contributions of the GSP, including perceptions of the counterfactual: what would not have happened without the GSP. There was almost a unanimous view that the biggest contribution of the GSP was in effective advocacy at the global level resulting in elevating the profile of soils in international development discussions:

3 http://www.fao.org/3/ca5983en/ca5983en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/ca5983en/ca5983en.pdf

12

there was strong agreement among the survey respondents that the Global Soil Partnership has played a leading role in giving visibility and prominence to soils in the international development agenda, through the scientific and economic evidence on condition, degradation and potential/limitation of soils and the importance of soils in attaining shared sustainable development goals. This has triggered action at national level as many countries have launched new soil programmes or increased their investment on soils. The GSP has helped raised the profile and understanding of soils and soil management globally for the benefit of governments and country based organisations. It has highlighted the need for improved sustainable soil management and emphasised the need for collaborative efforts globally to facilitate action related to food security, climate change and many other ecosystem service related issues. (Fig 1 and Fig 2). Even though soil scientists and academicians had been active in analysing soils, the GSP’s key value addition was to bring the large body of scientific evidence to the attention of policy makers and policy fora. The GSP advocacy briefs4consistently emphasized economic, social and environmental consequences and costs of neglecting soils management and the need for policy actions at national and international level. During 2013-2019, the GSP brought out over 30 knowledge and advocacy products5.

Fig 1. Survey perceptions on GSP’s role in enhancing knowledge on soil conditions

4 Beginning with the Policy brief ‘Impact of soil loss in Malawi: macroeconomic effect on GDP, sectoral adjustments and poverty, CA 2665en. 5 http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/publications/en/

http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/publications/en/

13

Fig 2. Survey perceptions on GSP’s knowledge/technical authority in soil management

11. The GSP was also instrumental in creating momentum for more organized soil information collection and dissemination – at global, regional, and national levels, including indicators to monitor the state of soils, with due emphasis on the standardization and harmonization of soil data and information.

12. Key milestones in the period 2013-19 include the following:

• Production of the Status of the World’s Soil Resources Report (first in 2015, and second edition to be published in 2025)

• Endorsement of the UN World Soil Day (5 December) and the International Year of Soils (IYS) 2015

• Issuance of the revised World Soil Charter (WSC) • Establishment of Regional Soil Partnerships (RSP) and international networks like the

International Network of Black Soils (INBS), the Global Soil Laboratory Network (GLOSOLAN) and the International Network on Salt-Affected Soils (INSAS)

• Development of capacities in developing countries on digital soil mapping (DSM) • Establishment of the International Network of Soil Information Institutions (INSII) • Adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (VGSSM) • Adoption of the International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and

Management of Fertilizers 13. A selection of the salient outputs and achievements is presented in Figure 3.

14

Fig 3. Selection of GSP’s main outputs and achievements, source: GSP documents

Box 1. Brief Highlights of some GSP Flagships World Soil Charter (WSC) A revised World Soil Charter was endorsed at the 39th session of the FAO Conference (2015). The GSP’s ITPS was tasked with assessing the validity of the Charter adopted some time ago and developing a revised text more attuned to present and challenging soil issues and contexts. The revised Charter contains a number of key principles and general guidelines to chart required policy measures and programmes to guarantee sustainable management of soils in all regions and countries. Coinciding with the International Year of Soils, member countries during the 39th FAO Conference unanimously endorsed the revised WSC as a vehicle to promote and institutionalize sustainable soil management at all levels. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) report The SWSR report (2015) is a sterling example of collaborative work carried out under the guidance of the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS), bringing together contributions from over 200 scientists from 60 countries. The report presents a global assessment on soils and related issues; the data is based on peer-reviewed scientific literature, complemented with expert knowledge. It provides a description and a ranking of ten major soil threats that endanger ecosystem functions, both globally and in each region. It describes direct and indirect pressures on soils, as well as ways and means to combat soil degradation. Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (VGSSM)

15

The VGSSM (2017) is a set of guidelines that provide technical and policy recommendations on how to achieve sustainable soil management. The VGSSM are of a voluntary nature and not legally binding. They elaborate on the principles outlined in the revised World Soil Charter, taking into account the evidence provided in the Status of the World’s Soil Resources report. The guidelines were also developed through an inclusive process within the framework of the GSP. It is another good example of the effective collaborative work among multiple stakeholders – including academicians, national and research institutions, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, civil society and the private sector – who contributed with scientific knowledge and experience on how soils should be sustainably managed for properly delivering ecosystem services while halting degradation. International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilizers (Fertilizer Code) This code was the result of a broad and intensive consultation process overseen by the ITPS between December 2017 and February 2019. The document was initially developed with public inputs during two open-online consultations and the support of an open-ended working group consisting of fertilizer experts nominated by member countries and other experts from academia, industry, civil society and the farming community. It was developed in response to a request by the 25th session of the Committee on Agriculture (COAG) to strengthen its work on food safety and the safe use of fertilizers and pesticides. It also responds to the third UN Environment Assembly (UNEA3) declaration on soil pollution and supports the implementation of the VGSSM. The Fertilizer Code aims to address issues of global importance, thereby contributing to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Code provides a locally adaptable framework and a voluntary set of principles to serve the different stakeholders directly or indirectly involved with fertilizers. World Soil Day (WSD) A strong vehicle for effective global advocacy is World Soil Day. The GSP sought international visibility to the importance of soils by pioneering the acceptance by the UN General Assembly of the declaration of 2015 as the International Year of Soils, and the official observance of the World Soil Day (WSD) on 5th December, to be commemorated in all regions and countries. Since its designation, there has been a steady increase in its observance worldwide: from 8 countries in 2013 to more than 500 events in about 100 countries in 2019.6 The WSD network consists of over 700 organizers and reached over 600 million people worldwide through its media campaigns. On the occasion of WSD outstanding scientific contributions are rewarded through the annual Glinka World Soil Prize (since 2015, sponsored by the Russian Federation) and the King Bhumibol World Soil Day Awards (since 2018, sponsored by the Kingdom of Thailand) The World Soil Day events also highlight specific themes for the year for attention by all GSP partners: Soils and Pulses (2016); Soil Pollution (2017); Be the solution to soil pollution (2018) and Soil Erosion (2019).

14. The online survey of the stocktaking exercise showed high levels of appreciation for the usefulness of several products and platforms. A large percentage of respondents cited these as very useful. The most popular entries were the SWSR, GSOCMap, GLOSIS, VGSSM, GLOSOLAN, the Fertilizer Code, and the RWSC.

6 As reported in the World Soil Day FAO website.

https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/k1800204.english.pdf

16

Fig 4. Survey perceptions on usefulness of various GSP products and platforms, numbers of respondents (out of 128) selecting specific ratings.

The Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils 15. A cornerstone of the GSP architecture is the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) tasked to provide scientific and technical advice on global soil issues. The 27 members appointed (79 nominations were received in 2018) by the GSP Plenary Assembly, are recognized experts representing the range of scientific and practical expertise encompassed by the GSP, besides ensuring regional and gender balance.7 ITPS members act in their personal capacity and do not receive instructions from any government or other institution.

16. The review confirmed the ITPS as being the main foundation of the GSP’s technical standing, and at the core of the numerous global knowledge products and guidance materials developed under GSP auspices. The expertise assembled in the ITPS, besides its widely representative composition and its independence (a three-year term and pro bono engagement) brings huge credibility to the GSP and its outputs. The ITPS also serves as a bridge with other relevant conventions, especially the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). ITPS members are engaged with other scientific panels such as the Science Policy Interface (SPI) of the UNCCD, the

7 The geographical balance is: 5 members each from Africa, Asia, Europe and LAC, 3 from the NENA, and 2 each from North America and South West Pacific; gender balance: 10 women and 17 men.

17

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) of the UNCBD, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

17. Amidst the overall positive impressions concerning the ITPS, the review took note of a few concerns over the GSP ambitious agenda and resulting heavy workload on the Panel, which limits its ability to respond effectively to these growing needs. ITPS members also cited insufficient advance notice to undertake necessary consultations on reviews of important technical documents that need to be endorsed. Members also expressed a need for support with online collaboration tools to cope with the workload and provide high quality outputs. The scope for use of former ITPS members as resource persons could also be explored.

18. The growing momentum on the soils agenda has also brought a steep rise in workloads for the Secretariat; at times boundaries between the ITPS and Secretariat have been unclear. There are perceptions of sporadic encroachments, with the Secretariat’s use of external consultants for completing some outputs that could not be undertaken within the ITPS’s agreed workplan.

19. Hence, a more realistic plan of engagement is required, keeping in mind the limited resources and time constraints in which the ITPS needs to operate, in giving its stamp of technical approval and quality assurance. There were strong views that, while a phase of extensive knowledge generation was a necessity of the past few years to build consensus on the soil agenda, it would be timely to give far more emphasis on knowledge translation into action on the ground. There were also suggestions for rationalization of working groups assisting the ITPS given that members are often involved in in several of them. In any case, the rising workload calls for possible reconsideration of the pro bono engagement of scientific experts, without creating conflict of interests and negatively affecting the independence of the ITPS and its members.

Engagement with relevant UN Conventions and other bodies 20. With the ITPS’s explicit mandate to provide scientific and technical advice to other UN organizations and bodies with an interest in soils, the GSP Secretariat and the ITPS succeeded in establishing structured collaboration arrangements with the Science-Policy Interface (SPI) of UNCCD, IPBES and the IPCC. The annual Global Symposia convened by the Secretariat as endorsed by GSP organs and based on identified major soil threats have supported thematic engagement of these external bodies (as well as substantial numbers of stakeholders). Topics so far were soil organic carbon, soil pollution, and soil biodiversity. The highlights of engagement with some of the convention bodies are summarized below.

• UNCCD: Global Symposium on Global Soil Organic Carbon in 2017, joint outcome document; Chapter contributed by ITPS to the Global Land Outlook, released at UNCCD COP 13, Sept 2017; new global soil organic carbon map (GSOCMap) to provide data for the SDG indicator 15.3 and UNCCD endorsement of metrics for assessment of land degradation neutrality (LDN). The UNCCD COP has formally encouraged cooperation between its Science Policy Interface (SPI) cooperate with the ITPS on topics to be jointly confirmed by the SPI and the ITPS, bearing in mind the importance of soil organic carbon to land degradation neutrality (LDN). These include SPI’s involvement in any follow-up activities emerging from the conclusions of the Global Symposium on Soil Organic Carbon (2017) and the Global Symposium on Soil Erosion (2019).The SPI should explore with the ITPS potential participation in future symposiums relevant to the UNCCD, including the Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity (2020).

18

• IPCC: the ITPS obtained observer organization status within IPCC, which enables it to propose experts for the various IPCC assessments relevant to soils. Three ITPS members have been nominated as experts within the on-going IPCC reporting cycle.

• UNEP: Soil pollution issues remain largely understated in global fora and the ITPS is the adequate body to address the large knowledge gaps that persist at the global level in collaboration with existing initiatives. The Global Symposium on Soil Pollution (GSOP18) was organized jointly by GSP, UNEP and World Health Organization (WHO). The outcome document provided an agenda for action, whose key outputs are the global assessment of soil pollution and the preparation of guidelines for mapping and monitoring soil pollution, and a database on the best available techniques to manage and remediate soil pollution.

• IPBES: Since 2015, ITPS Chairperson serves as co-chair of the IPBES Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment (LDRA) panel. ITPS has provided a detailed review of assessment drafts. The Thematic Assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration (LDRA) received endorsement by the IPBES-6 Plenary Assembly in 2018. The organization of the Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity is under way; this event is expected to take place sat the beginning of 2021.

21. The interactions between the GSP’s ITPS and UNCCD’s Science Policy Interface (SPI) are very important for advocacy at the national level. The ITPS has had an important influence on the UNCCD’s Science Policy Interface (SPI) processes to make the policy case for national investments in soil monitoring and governance. These also provide the basis for actions by the GSP to implement programmes in countries. Although due efforts have been made to engage with other key actors, it has not always been easy to maximize synergies. At times, there are challenges in having mutually beneficial recognition of approaches and indicators proposed by different entities.8

22. However, the potential for cooperation between GSP and other bodies is immense. The GSP, with the institutional umbrella of FAO has a major comparative advantage in assisting with the implementation of convention outcomes through its regional and national presence and networks. Land degradation neutrality is an ideal example: 90 countries have set national targets under SDG 15.1.3.By leveraging the partnership and more effective use of UNCCD national focal points, the GSP through FAO can facilitate engagements with ministries other than agriculture, and lead technical support at the national level. Similarly, the GSP can assist with better formulated national projects based on soil indicators that contribute to climate change and environmental sustainability objectives to be funded by GEF and GCF.

Resource mobilization 23. The GSP Terms of Reference specify that the financial implications of GSP- induced activities should take account of the principle of “partnership” and that each partner should contribute with different inputs for their successful implementation. They also specify that ‘FAO is to lead the GSP process and should guarantee basic budgetary support from its regular programme to ensure reasonable functionality’.

8 The few instances cited were: the debate on agreeing to the three basic SDG indicators for land cover, soil productivity and soil organic carbon, and not expanding the work load for countries to monitor 13 indicators as proposed, soil erosion indicators for instance; the other being on the recognition and use of soil maps produced by the GSP especially by Ministries of Environment.

19

24. The Healthy Soils Facility document issued to facilitate interaction with potential sources of financial assistance (subsequently renamed Multi-donor Platform) articulated tentative resource requirements of USD 60 million, against which the GSP could only mobilize voluntary resources of 11.8 million, about 19.6% of the target. Nevertheless, there has been progressive improvement in resource mobilization and enhanced delivery, with current expenditure of over USD 3.5 million a year in the 2018-2019 biennium, over twice the average delivery experienced in the 2013-2017 period of USD 1.52 million a year).

25. Key voluntary contributions came from the European Union (USD 3.5 m), the Russian Federation (USD 3 m), Germany (USD 1.5 million), Switzerland (USD 0.78 m), and the Netherlands (USD 0.6 m) with smaller amounts from other countries. Additionally, GSP activities received USD 1.28 m in private sector contributions - USD 1.24 m from PhosAgro and USD 40 000 from the International Fertilizers Association, as well as in-kind support from various countries, institutions and other partners.

Fig 5. Resource mobilization and key contributors, source: GSP documents

26. FAO’s contributions were of the order of USD 6.3 m, covering the costs of the Plenary Assembly and Secretariat (USD 2.6 m) and funding technical cooperation projects (USD 3.7 Million). Support to the GSP is also part of one of the FAO’s 11 Corporate Areas for Resource Mobilization: “Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture” and Major Areas of Work “Doing more with less –Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture” and “Climate Smart Agriculture”. Also, soil-related interventions are found in some FAO Regional Initiatives such as Building resilience in Africa’s drylands, Integrated Management of agricultural landscapes in Africa, the Asia and the Pacific’s Rice initiative, and Improving Food systems in the Caribbean.

20

Fig 6. Breakdown of FAO resource contributions, source: GSP documents

27. Despite the GSP being a potentially large partnership, the task of resource mobilization has so far primarily been vested in the concerned FAO units. Although, as already noted above, the basic documents which led to GSP establishment duly stress that each partner should contribute with different inputs to the successful implementation of activities, there is insufficient clarification on resource mobilization responsibilities of all interested parties, especially modalities of ensuring due accountability and utilization of resources raised from various channels, as the GSP is not a legal contracting entity. The need for concerted resource mobilization plans at regional levels to support comprehensive soil management was seen to be lacking in the mindset of GSP partners.

28. While the extrabudgetary contributions received so far were critical to the realization of GSP efficient and prolific outputs, rigid earmarking of contributions for specific activities or projects sometimes affected essential and not very capital-intensive tasks. Also, the inadequate budgets for translation and interpretation support (particularly for the PA) were cited by several respondents.

29. The view was expressed that one possible factor in GSP’s modest success in garnering adequate extrabudgetary funding via the Healthy Soils Multi Partner Platform may lie in limited usefulness of the five pillars approach as a vehicle for resource mobilization. It would be more appealing to use an outcome-based results framework linked to targets under Agenda 2030, or other well recognized agreements, such as on Climate Change and Biodiversity. These are discussed in more detail in the ‘Looking Forward’ section.

GSP Secretariat 30. The Global Soil Partnership Secretariat was set up at FAO to facilitate and coordinate the implementation of GSP activities at all levels in close interaction with the Plenary Assembly, the ITPS and the RSPs. Composed of technical and administrative staff and headed by an Executive Secretary, the key responsibilities as outlined in the Rules of Procedure adopted by the PA are:

21

• Organize the Plenary Assembly annual meetings and other meetings

• Provide necessary administrative and technical support to facilitate governance, finance, communications, planning, and operational management

• Under the guidance of the GSP Plenary Assembly and seeking the technical and scientific advice of the ITPS, support implementation of GSP activities according to pillars

• Facilitate ITPS work, including interaction with the Plenary Assembly

• Facilitate RSPs work in implementing the Plans of Action at regional level

• Promoting, organizing and facilitating activities of the World Soil Day, and other awareness raising events such as the International Year of Soils

• Promoting necessary partnerships, networking and communication activities

• Coordinate GSP work with other Rio Conventions, notably the UNCCD- Stakeholders were unanimous in their high appreciation for the Secretariat’s effectiveness and many observed that the Secretariat was often being perceived as the prime mover for work under the Partnership. The Secretariat’s performance was even more noteworthy given the skeletal resources available to engage with the GSP increasing footprint.

31. This high degree of satisfaction with the Secretariat’s efficacy applied in particular to servicing the Plenary Assembly, organizing the Global Symposia, supporting the widespread observance of World Soil Day, and coordinating the production of knowledge products, communications and advocacy documents, and reporting.

32. The Secretariat’s role in resource mobilization via the Healthy Soils Multi-Partner Platform, and Technical Cooperation Projects (funded from FAO core-resources) does not however appear to be fully understood. In the absence of due consultations and clear directions on resource mobilization roles and approaches, there are perceptions in a few quarters that the GSP is an “FAO-captive” initiative and that the opportunities of resource mobilization and technical support delivery somehow lie exclusively with FAO. However, it was also noted that within the present structural arrangements, no entity other than FAO can enter into legal and financial agreements – for the GSP is not an independent legal contracting entity. Unless a viable and widely accepted alternative to the strong institutional home that FAO provides to the GSP can be identified, the above perceptions need to be rectified. A concerted and thorough reassessment of the division of roles and responsibilities among key technical and resource partners is important for the GSP as the country demands for support increase steadily.

33. Another area of the Secretariat’s function is the coordination of Technical Cooperation Projects (funded by FAO Regular Budget according to well specified modalities). These projects have demonstrated their usefulness as catalytic pilots to justify larger investments by governments and also to attract donor support for larger initiatives. The implementation of GSP's goals has so far benefited from 11 TCPs in three regions, and these are implemented under the guidance of lead technical officers from FAO technical units. A perusal of the 11 TCPs approved so far under the GSP umbrella show that several ones (Sudan, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Sao Tome, Macedonia, and a regional TCP project for South America) are for support to building national soil information systems, in line with the architecture of the

22

GloSIS, using a tailored implementation. The present review includes a few concerns expressed in respect of the extent of involvement of the ITPS and RSPs in formulating these TCP initiatives. Other concerns relate to the extent of fit of the TCPs with the agreed Implementation Plans of Action and also the prevalent disconnect between the FAO field offices (which implement the TCPs) and GSP national focal points.

34. The role of the Secretariat in supporting the work of the ITPS Pillars working groups and the RSPs is well appreciated. However, the blurring of boundaries between the ITPS and Secretariat as mentioned earlier, have implications for the ITPS as the authoritative technical voice on global soil issues for not just the GSP but also in relation to other relevant conventions, especially the UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD.

35. It appears more generally that a few grey areas need to be addressed through deliberation and resultant clarification by partners:

• the ITPS role and engagement in the formulation and quality assurance of technical cooperation programmes and projects

• more precise Plenary Assembly guidelines and determination of priority areas for project formulation – in line with the Implementation of agreed Plans of Action

• Clearing house mechanisms for project proposals and resource mobilization (assuming several partner entities in a revamped GSP architecture could develop proposals)

36. To secure synergies within various parts of FAO, an internal GSP Task Force was established with a goal of sharing information and obtain technical feedback from the other units involved in soil management. Besides the Land and Water Division, which hosts the Secretariat, sustainable management and conservation of soils is also very much of relevance to the Plant Production and Protection Division, the Forestry Department, the Economic and Social Development Department, and the Office for Partnerships, Advocacy and Capacity Development (OPC). The GSP Task Force also includes focal points from the FAO Regional Offices.

23

Results at the regional and national level 37. In the analysis of the work at regional and national level, the review observed that the high effectiveness of the GSP at the global level (in developing knowledge products, standards and guidance for sustainable soil management practices) has not been translated sufficiently into action at the regional and national level. The dominant perception (of respondents consulted in the survey and interviews) is that the GSP is not performing to its full potential.

38. This in large measure is due to limitations of structure and resources for regional and national engagement mechanisms, and also the varying levels of priority attached by countries to soils, as reflected in investments in soil management.

Fig 7. Survey perceptions on whether GSP is performing to full potential

Regional Soil Partnerships

39. The Regional Soil Partnerships (RSPs) were intended to work in close coordination with FAO Regional Offices and establish an interactive consultative process with national soils entities. The RSPs may have established subsidiary working groups and developed Regional Implementation Plans (indicative five-year horizon) consistent with the five pillars of action of the GSP. RSPs draw their work priorities based from the regional analyses in the SWSR report, and the plans of action.

40. Regional Soil Partnerships were established in Africa; Asia; Near East and North Africa; Central America and the Caribbean; Europe and the Eurasian sub-regional partnership; South America; North America and the Pacific. After some rearrangements, the Central America and the Caribbean and the South American Soil Partnerships have merged in the Latin America

24

and the Caribbean Soil Partnership (LAC). The status of the RSPs through activities and projects is very heterogeneous as some RSPs are more active than others. This is somehow related to the availability of funded activities and in great manner of the active role of the Chair and the regional Secretariats, though not available in all RSPs.

41. Respondents to the survey strongly agreed as to the importance of Regional Soil Partnerships to achieve the aims of the GSP. In line with expectations, while the global levels of the GSP structure engage mostly in knowledge leadership, standards-setting and advocacy, the RSPs should be the main implementing channels, contextualizing the global work to support national actions in countries through a common pool of expertise. However, considerably greater level of uncertainty was expressed on their useful contributions so far to the propagation of conservation and sustainable use of soil and effective soil management practices.

Fig 8. Survey perceptions on contributions at the regional level.

42. A major design weakness of the RSPs was underlined, i.e. the dependence on pro bono engagement. RSP structures need firm programmatic resources and budgets to implement work programmes and cannot be run solely on a voluntary basis. Several respondents stated that GSP-provided funding was inadequate for travel and other costs linked to their expected role as Pillar chairs. As a result, pillar chairs could not undertake all their tasks and responsibilities as set out. The pillar Chairs (especially for Pillars 4 and 5) are expected to attend international events, including GSP-related events regarding their respective pillars, and in their capacity as regional representatives. However, approvals from their parent country institutions have been difficult as the engagements are not exclusively on behalf of the sponsoring country. Pre-existing commitments also limited working group members or pillar chairs from performing their functions, thus delaying implementation of core activities.

25

43. RSPs have generally developed Regional Implementation Plans (RIP), including estimates of financial resources of external origin. These ranged (thus excluding indeterminate national contributions) from USD 11 million for the NENA Soil Partnership to USD 32.5 million for the African Soil Partnership, the latter for a coverage of 45 countries. In light of sizeable investment needs, RIPs require proper resource mobilization strategies and due donor engagement, especially at the national level, in a context of decentralization of development cooperation mechanisms. Also, several components of the RIPs perused by the review presume sizeable domestic contributions.9 However, there is not much evidence that these regional implementation plans were formally endorsed by the concerned countries, or that cogent resource mobilization plans were formulated at the regional or country level.

44. The review confirmed that despite the increased awareness of the importance of soils in attaining the SDGs and other climate change and biodiversity related targets, the political commitment at national level remained the key to transforming this awareness into investments towards concrete actions and impacts. There is huge variance in this regard among countries and regions. For transformative changes and impacts, the knowledge and technical support from platforms such as the GSP need to be complemented and channelized through investments in soil analysis, awareness and adoption of good practices, propagated through national extension services. The institutional mechanisms to link scientists and policy makers are weak in several countries – in fact, the GSP tries to address this problem through the national focal points and national partnership structures, but with rather limited resources.

45. Implementation at regional and national levels varies also on account of two other factors. Firstly, national (and regional) initiatives are more likely to be established around national needs and priorities, which may not necessarily mirror the GSP’s framework. Secondly, with the GSP being a voluntary partnership, it has been easy for countries to sign up without undertaking specific commitments to action.

46. It was noted that the Eurasian sub regional partnership (EaSP) and the LAC regional partnerships have been more successful in resource mobilization to implement relevant regional actions and support countries with implementing several actions identified in the Regional Implementation Plans. The EaSP funding comes from the Russian Federation, and the secretariat is hosted by the Lomonosov Moscow State University, both have provided continuity of human and financial resource support to undertake training and technical support delivery in several Eurasian countries. The EaSP has also directed efforts to securing funding from the Global Environment Facility for a proposal for a regional project (14 countries) for “balance between conservation and use of soil resources in agriculture production landscapes”. The programme draws mainly from the EaSP implementation plan, and emphasizes areas such as soil pollution, soil biodiversity assessments and valuation of soil ecosystem functions, besides strengthening soil diagnosis and monitoring infrastructure. These areas are underrepresented in other programmes such as CACILM, WOCAT and LADA. 10 The financing estimates for the proposal were USD 2.6 million from GEF and USD 16 million from co-financing.

47. Similarly, in the LAC, efforts are underway to formulate a regional programme for prospective funding by GEF, and voluntary contributions from partners have enabled more 9 The team perused the African, NENA and Asian Regional Investment Plans. 10 Eurasia Soil Partnership presentation, 2019

26

traction in the Latin America soil information system (SISLAC) and the Latin American soil laboratory network (LATSOLAN). Similar trends have been mentioned for the RECSOIL: re-carbonization initiative. The FAO sub-regional offices in LAC and the liaison office in Moscow have made important contributions to induce financing support to these initiatives.

48. In Asia, the support of the Kingdom of Thailand was instrumental in setting up the Centre of Excellence for Soil Research in Asia (CESRA) which was, considered by some respondents to be a good example of how the RSP structure can be strengthened.

49. In 2019, the Asian Soil Partnership (ASP) considered the proposal for establishing this CESRA, whose mission is to support the ASP countries in achieving sustainable soil management, as a facilitator to the development and implementation of regional projects on soils, contributing to GSP and ASP objectives, SDGs and other global targets.

50. The Plenary Assembly at its 2019 session noted that while impetus was present, in several cases the lack of financial resources and commitment delayed implementation of agreed activities by RSPs. Annual meetings were held only in Asia, Near East and North Africa, Latin America and Europe (including Eurasia)11.

51. The review also noted the important role the Permanent Representatives in Rome can play in facilitating uptake of the GSP knowledge and lessons at the country level. In several countries where the review underlined concrete national implementation actions, the Permanent Representatives have played a useful role of canvassing the involvement of necessary counterparts in several ministries. These efforts have shown positive results in terms of greater national commitment being facilitated by resources, technical cooperation requests and south-south cooperation initiatives.

52. The GSP guidelines for RSPs clarify that resource mobilization can be facilitated by use of the Healthy Soil Multi-donor Platform, where FAO is the institutional recipient of extrabudgetary contributions to be transferred to beneficiary countries via approved projects. As the RSPs and NSPs are only internal structures under the GSP umbrella and not legal entities, they clearly cannot engage in autonomous resource mobilization initiatives. While the task of resource mobilization to support the GSP Goals has so far primarily rested on FAO concerned units, it was noted that engagement of FAO’s regional and country presence in the implementation of the RIPs has been insignificant. The RSPs have not yet engaged effectively with the FAO decentralized offices.12

National Soil Partnerships 53. National Soil Partnerships (NSPs) were not part of the original design of the GSP. However, several GSP partners decided to apply the concept of a consolidated soil-related network by establishing National Soil Partnerships (NSPs). To date, several countries have established such National Soil Partnerships, including: Brazil, Italy, Iran, Portugal, Syria, Thailand, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Malawi, Mongolia, Philippines, Costa Rica, and Ukraine; while other countries are planning the establishment of such partnerships. A formal reference to

11 Report on Overall performance of the GSP, June 2019, point k. 12 2% of 128 survey responses breakup by profile of respondents.

27

NSPs was made only in the Plenary Assembly meeting in 2019, and the GSP Secretariat has issued guidelines on the creation and consolidation of NSPs.

54. It was observed that the guidelines recommend elements similar to those of the global and regional structures: i.e. Secretariat, Chairperson, National Implementation Plans to be developed by Pillar working groups and the holding of ‘regular’ plenary meetings. As in the case of the RSPs, the practicality and usefulness of national structures mirroring too strictly those at the global GSP level can be questioned.

Fig 9. Survey perceptions on contributions at the national level.

55. In fact, some ambiguities in the guidelines for NSPs are worth reviewing. Firstly, the NSP is defined as a grouping of all interested and active entities in a country willing to contribute to the achievement of sustainable soil management under the framework of the Global Soil Partnership. The composition of the NSP should be representative of the key actors involved in policy and governance actions. However, guidelines do not emphasise core membership of anchor stakeholders, especially key ministries with mandates covering soil governance, and participation of the FAO (and other relevant agencies’) country offices and other key institutions. Secondly, as the functions and operational tasks listed for NSPs are somewhat daunting to be even attempted on a voluntary basis, these would call for ‘mission-mode’ structures rather than ‘best-efforts’ based coalition of the willing. Related to the same, the guidelines are vague on the financial arrangements vital for their functioning. Instead, they encourage cost savings through holding plenary meetings back to back with other important national meetings related to soils, and also that plenary meetings should be held in person only when a minimum (unspecified) quorum is present.

56. Considering the still early stages of the NSP establishment process, a review is warranted of the major impediments to the RSP adequate functioning in the light of lessons

28

learnt. Most importantly, the apparent disconnect between the GSP structures and FAO regional and country offices needs to be addressed, with a view to strengthen transfer of global knowledge as the basis for soil governance and sustainable soil management.

57. The Global Soil Doctor Programme is a clear illustration of this aspect. The Global Soil Doctors Programme, a flagship of Pillar 2 is primarily about transforming national level practices on sustainable soil management strengthening knowledge and capacities on the ground, through national extension service support systems whether government or privately owned. It would be pragmatic to embed the programme within existing programmes and platforms such as the global FAO Farmer Field School platform operating in over 90 countries13 or other initiatives14. Here again, the engagement of the FAO country offices is crucial.

58. The review observes that at the national level, the key factor toward transformation is ensuring government ownership and leadership of comprehensive soil improvement programmes, with articulation of targets and resource commitments. In 2018, the GSP secretariat commissioned an online survey to assess activities by GSP partners in support of the RWSC.15 The survey highlighted four barriers to implementation: availability of funds, the lack of dissemination and awareness of the revised World Soil Charter, the absence of policies on soil protection or inadequate policies on soil protection, and the absence of a monitoring system (e.g. on the use of subsidies for soil protection, on soil status, etc.). It also identified two priority areas for action: establishing soil monitoring systems for a monitoring of national and international targets (e.g. policies and the SDGs); and mobilization of financial resources for practicing sustainable soil management and establish or review policies on soil protection. These are clear directions for what needs to be prioritised at country level; also, these areas necessitate leadership by governments and relevant intergovernmental agencies.

59. The RWSC survey also showed broad consensus among the stakeholders that the GSP should adopt more formal programmatic approaches for national implementation to address issues in country-specific contexts. (Figure 10). Respondents also expressed need for more direct linkage between the GSP’s work to the targets and indicators of Agenda 2030 and other key climate change and biodiversity goals. From this perspective, the NSP as proposed appears inadequate; what would be more effective is a national task force to implement a comprehensive soil improvement programme agreed and jointly led by government.

13 Global Farmer Field School Platform, FAO web site. 14 Such as the Songhai Centre in Africa. 15 Adopted unanimously at the 39th FAO Conference in June 2015, the revised World Soil Charter unanimously adopted at the FAO Conference in 2015 can be taken as the reaffirmation by signatories of resolve to sustainably manage soils and rehabilitate and or restore degraded soils. The charter identifies actions for private sector scientific community, governments and international organizations, and other groups.

29

60. As FAO’s country offices and UN Country Teams are appropriate entry points for engagement at the country level, National Soil Partnerships should be recognized as the structures to support formulation and implementation of comprehensive ‘national soil improvement programmes’ with results frameworks that include key indicators linked to the SDGs, CBD and IPCC targets that can be monitored and reported at country level and also allowing for aggregation. Some efforts have already begun in this direction. A guidance product on Soils and the SDGs was developed, which shows the impacts on multiple SDGs that can ensue from sustainable soil management. Work is also in progress to link data from Soil Organic Carbon maps and Carbon sequestration potential maps to monitor relevant SDG indicators such as 2.4.1 (Proportion of Area under sustainable agriculture); 15.3.1 (Land Degradation Neutrality), besides others.

Fig 10. Survey perceptions on need for programmatic approaches linked to targets.

61. Besides NSPs, the National Focal Points (NFPs) appointed in many countries have also a key role to play in enabling effective GSP-induced outcomes at the country level. However, as in case of the RSPs, the presumably pro bono and best-efforts based engagement of NFPs limit a vigorous transformative engagement that is called for at the national level. Views were expressed in the survey, that there is a need for nominating “active” focal points and selecting them from a wider pool, e.g. from academia and research scientists who could be interested to take on the NFP role. The weaknesses inherent in GSP current regional and national elements have also been addressed in the Plenary Assembly of 2019, which specifically noted: ‘there are significant cases where the focal point is not performing his/her role as expected, impairing the country’s participation in the different GSP activities’16.

16 June 2019 Plenary Report overall performance of the GSO, June 2019

30

62. Within a programmatic approach, this role will become vital. It would be useful to weigh the relative benefits of the present arrangement of NFP role played amidst other primary responsibilities and a new cadre of national programme leaders to support countries under comprehensive national soil management programmes.

4. Looking forward 63. The GSP has come a long distance in the past seven years of its operation, and is at a juncture where it needs to recalibrate its strategy from a diagnosis-intensive approach which was highly justified so far, to a prime focus on concrete actions on the ground to implement and reap the benefits of sustainable soil management. This will call for new modalities of engagement and financing, with more attention needed to strengthening national support mechanisms. Increasingly, results frameworks for soil governance will need to be aligned more explicitly to the targets and indicators enlisted under the Agenda 2030 and other international conventions.

64. An important requirement for any type of national GSP-induced presence at the country level is to establish strong institutional entry points to ministries other than Agriculture, particularly Environment and Climate Change, besides some line ministries such as construction, mining and industry according to local contexts. Another issue is to be able to secure the closest as possible alignment of interests of multiple sector stakeholders and achieve the right balance between soil productivity and carbon sequestration in dealing with food security and provision of ecosystem services.

65. Internally, the GSP partners need to address issues of continuity and predictable funding at this critical juncture when the soils agenda has gathered momentum. A greater level of institutionalization of the GSP initiative inside FAO would also enable it to have greater and more predictable access to resources, making use of the Organization's corporate and decentralized resource mobilization mechanisms on a par with other high priority areas.

66. The main conclusion from this stock-taking exercise is to recommend in-depth reconsideration of three areas: GSP Structural arrangements, particularly at regional and national levels, its more formal institutional recognition such as being a statutory organ of FAO, and articulation of more comprehensive programmatic approaches for Resource Mobilization and Results Monitoring.

Structure 67. The “five pillars” framework currently in use, while having served well the initiative in its fledgling stages needs to be reviewed for several reasons. The survey and interviews brought to the fore a wide range of options, including some extreme suggestions such as abolishing the pillars and regional structures and focusing solely on delivering concrete products, platforms and services. The lack of consensus within GSP stakeholders is in itself a strong enough reason for a review. However, the individuals commissioned for this exercise independently came to the conclusion that a review would be in order, for three reasons given below.

68. Firstly, despite the soils agenda now being highly accepted by development actors, the initial Healthy Soils Facility document and successor have not generated sufficient interest

31

and traction from partners and donors. In part it was due to the conceptual complexity of some pillars, especially pillar 3 – which continues to be a challenge with its huge scope on one hand and the limited ability of the GSP to meet the needs. Also, donor interest varies among pillars, with positions in favour or against the GSP’s role in generating technical knowledge, global advocacy, and field level implementation. Also, respondents observed the complementarities among pillars 4 and 5 were strong enough to warrant to be merged into one pillar. There were also suggestions that Pillars 1, 4 and 5 could be clubbed into a single global knowledge product and platforms pillar, while Pillar 2 can be promoted as the field implementation support pillar.

69. Also, the document as structured does not clarify the scope for customization or menu shopping to fund only some pillars and some geographies. Yet, on the ground, funding has gone into a few concrete areas: soil information systems, laboratories and analysis capacities, etc. A framework document that provides more options without disturbing the overall intervention logic would be able to probe donor interests more accurately than the present document which does not have the facility of earmarking by pillars.

70. Secondly, the GSP basic documents were formulated at a time when the SDGs had not been formally adopted, hence they do not have a results matrix that links the GSP’s outputs to targets and indicators which will be used by countries for reporting progress. With the experience of seven years, the GSP can now postulate theories of change for addressing the ten threats through a menu of policies and technical programmes, with a results framework designed around relevant soil condition indicators that can be monitored over a medium-term programme framework. Programme results could be linked to relevant indicators under SDGs: SDG 1 (no poverty); SDG 2 (zero hunger); SDG 3 (good health and well-being); SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation); SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth); SDG 13 (climate action); SDG 14 (life below water); SDG 15 (life on land); and SDG 17 (partnerships for the Goals).

71. A publication authored by a few experts including an ITPS member, presents five groups of SDGs and assigned indicators where soil plays a central role:

• explicitly include productivity (2.3, 2.4)

• explicitly include soil degradation (15.3)

• name soil in the SDG although no soil-based indicator has been proposed (3.9)

• have direct relevance to soil resources with explicit reference to land resources but no reference to soil (11.3)

• have direct relevance of soil to SDG without naming soil in SDG nor including soil-related SDG indicator (6.4, 6.5, 13.2, 14.1, 15.5).

72. The paper also highlights soil productivity loss as a central concept of land degradation and is also affected by reduction of soil water holding capacity and conductivity, loss of soil biodiversity, soil pollution, and/or nutrient load (SDGs 3.9, 6.4, 6.5, 14.1, 15.5). With regard to climate regulation (SDG 13.2), SOC is considered the most relevant soil property.17 Thus, the GSP could use indicators 2.3, 2.4, 3.9, 6.4, 6.5, 15.3, 13.2, 14.1, and 15.5 for monitoring

17 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754457/ , one of the authors being Luca Montanarella, ITPS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754457/

32

and reporting contributions in countries and at the aggregate level. Related indicators could be the level of public investment and development cooperation support towards improving soil health under SDGs 16 and 17.

73. Thirdly, with the large body of knowledge produced in the last seven years and the increased awareness on soils, there is a natural evolution from a global awareness and agenda setting role to a more implementation-support role to countries. Thus, the conditions are ripe for a more concretely designed technical cooperation programme addressing the ten threats mentioned in the SWRS report through the four broad action areas18, and with results aligned to the SDGs and other targets. This will enable the GSP to monitor and report on its contributions within countries and also across countries. In this regard, there is also a need to review the usefulness of mirroring the global structure (technical networks, pillar working groups and implementation plans) at national level. The present exercise would contend this to be infeasible and resource-heavy: what is critical at country level is governmental investments, SDGs-based monitoring frameworks, and a mechanism for seeking technical support of the GSP knowledge networks.

74. Based on the above analysis, the stocktaking review proposes the schematic as shown in Fig 10 to initiate discussions on possible improvements to the structure in line with the objective of delivering tangible results ‘on the ground’, i.e., measurable improvements in soil health at the country level that could be considered relevant contributions to internationally agreed goals and targets.

75. The salient elements of the proposed structure are: greater institutional recognition as an FAO statutory organ, with the involvement of other key relevant institutions in the governance; delineation and separation of operational functions and outputs, and delivery mechanisms at country level and multi-country support arrangements.

18The four action areas are: minimize degradation and restore productivity; stabilize global stores of soil organic matter, stabilize or reduce global use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers but increase in deficient areas, and improve knowledge about the state and trend of soil conditions.

33

Fig.10. Schematic for rearticulating of the GSP Structure

76. The review does not have any salient observations on processes, except to highlight that the increasing workloads for both the ITPS and Secretariat need a review of the practicality of current arrangements for engagement and remuneration for the considerable time and effort expended by resource persons. Linked to the revisions of the structure, it would be useful to compose two types of working groups within the ITPS. One is the substantive working groups, with teams elected or selected collegially to work on specific technical tasks, provide them with online collaborative tools. The second would be the editorial or reference group composed of all the remaining ITPS members, tasked with reviews, quality assurance and a sounding board role, against a commensurate remuneration. The use of former ITPS panel members for substantive groups could also be explored.

77. The review considers it important to revisit the logic of the five pillars, which are structured around delivery processes and reorient the GSP’s implementation logic around the ten soil threats, and rearranging work plans around interconnected actions to address these threats. It would be useful to have theories of change based on the four priority areas (minimize degradation and restore productivity; stabilize global stores of soil organic matter, stabilize or reduce global use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers but increase in deficient areas, and improve knowledge about the state and trend of soil conditions) for actions recommended in the State of World Soil Resources report in 2015, which still holds as the

34

reference diagnostic document for the GSP, using the framework of the ten soil threats and the four action areas and policy support domains.