全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Dear Colleagues,

I commend the Global Soil Partnership for a well-meaning working draft of te Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management. I feel that the draft is on the right track, building on earlier work done by FAO on soil health, Save and Grow, Conservation Agriculture etc.

The draft makes an excellent case, in the first half of section 4, for sustainable soil managemnet to be based on soil and landscape health management and implemented for production through the linked agroecological principles of Conservation Agriculture along with complementary practices of crop, nutrient, pest, water, farm power and mechanization management.

The draft unwittingly turns on itself in the second half of section 4 (the last four paragraphs) and casts doubts on what it has proposed in the first half of section 4. The draft would be helped considerably from inputs from colleagues who have actual field experience of implementing the adoption of soil health management through  Conservation Agriculture which is now spreading at an annual rate of 10 Mha globally incluidng in Africa and Asia. The constraints mentioned are made out to be much stronger than they actually are.

The first half of section 4 is based almost verbatum on the text from Save and Grow (FAO, 2011) and Kassam et al (2011), but cites references 8 and 9 which have had little to do with this text which was orginally drafted in 2010 when FAO was preparing the Save and Grow publication. Section 4 needs to redrafted. The Guidelines are not a record of an inconclusive debate, but an informed desired 'road map' of engagement to be followed by all stakeholders.  

Section 5 seems to me to be too restricted and weakest. It is the job of all concerned (instutions, groups and individuals) in the public, private and civil sectors, and particularly the farmers and their rural communities to implement the Guidelines and not just through the GSP.

In addition to the referneces that are cited, several more references should be cited which provide more evidence and support to the Guidelines. Refernce 10 has been discredited for several reasons but mainly because the dataset compiled for the meta-analysis is a mixed  bag of decontextualized data from conservation tillage, minimum or reduced tillage, no-till and Conservtaion Agriculture. The data is mainly from the USA, and the meta analysis is a good example of how not to do meta analysis. 

I have tried to edit the draft and have suggested references that could be considered for inclusion. I have used the marked up copy from Theodor Friedrich which I attach herewith, along with a book chapter on sustainable soil management, and a paper on the global spread of Conservation Agriculture. I will forward two other papers (regarding sustainable intensification, and policy and institutional support for CA adotion and uptake) in a separate contribution.

I will be happy to provide any clarification needed on any suggested changes made in track mode.

Thank you for the opportunity for sharing ideas and making an input into this very important Guidelines.

Sincerely,

Amir Kassam

Forum members,

This is a nice initiative that I fully support. These guidelines give a comprehensive account of the ecosystem services of agricultural soils (especially!) and the principal ways on how the soil should be managed to maintain and even imporvie the ecosystem services provided. It reads more like set of principles than actual guidelines, 'maintain soil cover', for example. Whether SSM is acheived or whether these guidelines are enought to acheive the SDG of course depends on the implementation. And maybe some general observations could be inlcuded on how to implement these guidelines in the face of the many challenges mentioned in the document. These general guidelines/principles seem to apply to situations in which the ESS are intact and need to be maintained, but less to those situations in which these services are compromised and need to be restored. I would like to see reference to soil degradation as one of the major challenges to implement these guidelines and achieve SSM. It seems that Conservation Agriculture is seen as the major mechanism to implement SSM, and like others have remarked I also do not agree with that.  See further comments in the attched document.

Regards, Jeroen Huising

Dear Sir,

I have made some comments on the VGSSM guidelines which I have attached.  I feel very strongly that until farmers have a real incentive to look after their land, i.e. when they have proper title to it, they will not have either the means or the incentive to implement the Guidelines. 

with best regards,

James Breen.

Dear Forum Members

Dear, Dr. Timothy Krupnik

You are absolutely right, suggesting to concretize recommendations. It will make them available to farmers. Besides, the uniform system of indicators of implementation of these recommendations is necessary.

Regards, Alexander Kaigorodtsev.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute with some aspects to the discussion Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management document.

According to the structure of the document, I think that the guidelines, should be highlighted in the document and the theoretical scientific bases, which are introductory way. They should go in annexes and by this way the document would emphize the pourpose of the document.

In terms of the content of the document, there isn't much to refine since it take into account very general guidelines (globally) and also it does not emphasize actions at the local level. As a matter of fact, I consider that the component of soil information might be highlighted because of the importance that it deserves in the knowledge of this resource. To have soil information could give technically sustainable strategies to addres management, conservation and recovery for productive purposes as well as soil degradation. Moreover, Government policies about soil should focus on the actual and potential land use planning based on updated soil information according to an appropriate scale. This is a great weakness that developing countries have.

An important aspect which is not clearly visible is to emphized some recomendations to implement social, cultural and political strategies according to the local projects. In many cases these are major limiting factors to implement, appropriate and go with the actions to care the soil resource by the stalkholders.

I hope this comments would de usefull.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. My main comments are detailed in the attached document. I summarize two key points below that I flag for further consideration.

1. Many of the guidelines are based on principles, which is fine in theory, but they can be quite subjectively interpreted. I would suggest adding a section on relatively easy to measure and monitor indicators of sustainable soil management, that can be implemented by practitioners. Simply applying principles to one's farm or lands is a great start, but in order to assure that soils are being well managed and contributing to the flow of ecosystem servives, simple indicators and monitoring is necessary, and I believe should be made a policy objective in many countries, particularly where soils are fragile, and where farmers rely heavily on them (in low-input situtations) for their subsistence.

2. As others have commented, there appears to be a very strong emphasis on conservation agriculture and no-tillage, with only a brief discussion of the trade-offs and limited adoption of CA by smallholders at the end of the document. To be more balanced, a number of other soil-building approaches and techniques could also be highlighted, to give practioners a suite of options to choose from should CA or no-till be less feasible in their respective environments. I believe it is useful to present a complete toolbox of different methods that can be used to maintain and improve soil quality, which in additon to CA and no-till may include techniques like agroforestry, smart livestock integration practices, stonelines (as used in the Sahel), more emphasis on green manures where appropriate, and so on. 

With that said, congratulations on the zero-draft. I hope that these and others' valuable comments will help improve this important document substantially.

Regards,

Tim

Dear all,

We are grateful for the comments received to date. Our task as to compile the comments so that they can be fully considered by the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (when it meets in mid-March). They will review the comments and will prepare a first draft of the Voluntary Guidelines on Sustainable Soil Management based on these inputs. Therefore, we kindly expect further comments so that all issues are well addressed by the different communities of soil users.

The following section briefly summarizes the comments received until the 19 February 2016. Subsequent contributors may wish to consult previous contributions to the Forum.

Again, our thanks to all of those who have taken the time to respond to the e-consultation. 

• The current version is focused on agricultural soils only and if to be useful for achieving SDGs, its scope should be wide to other land uses as well.
• There is need of reduce the introductory part and expand further the guidelines per se.
• Specific ways of achieving SSM and, very importantly, assessing its impact (using verifiable indicators) must be included.
• In the VGSSM emphasis should be placed on designing and developing fertilizers with well–balanced amounts of all plant nutrients, including micronutrients, adjusted to the location specific soil conditions in order to meet the needs of the plants and improve food quality.
• As mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, the voluntary guidelines should apply globally so why then try to push CA to all farmers? Fortunately in Sub-Saharan Africa, most policy-makers recognize the need for fertilizer (used efficiently) and varieties, in combination with good agricultural practices, including recycling or crop residues as is or via farmyard manure, and even tillage.
• The need to include land use planning and the need to adapt land use to land agroecological capacity. Restoration of degraded lands.
• The need to eliminate or drastically reducing burning of stubble and plant residues.
• The document is weak in urban and periurban soil aspects (urban orchards, urban soils, sealing,..) which are  important and emerging subject.
• First, I suggest that there’s no section named 1.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0. Just name them 1., 4., 5., 6. Second, I think it’s important to present the causes of bad soil management observed through the world. For, the guidelines should indicate how to face the obstacles to sustainable soil management worldwide.
• More emphasis on the mitigation capacity of soil in relation to climate change should be more highlighted.
• Indicating benefits of no-till: “There are no short-cuts to minimum-disturbance no-tillage”.
• Strongly advocates necessity of no-till adoption:” It is scientifically proven, that any kind of mechanical soil disturbance (tillage) applied in a regular way leads to soil degradation at rates very much higher than the natural soil formation processes. Therefore, only with strict no-till approach a truly sustainable soil management will be possible. This should be clearly stated.”
• Suggests making VGSSM consistent with FAO Policy Support Guidelines for the Promotion of Sustainable Production Intensifi­cation and Ecosystem Services.

• Attention to an aspect of soil conservation, which is very important but does not quite fit into the categories of soil guidelines are intended to cover. They represent what we might call 'ruins of soil', i.e., abandoned strip mines (USA and Pacific), large tracts of forest destroyed by uncontrolled logging (Burma and Indonesia), unfilled abandoned mines (Cornwall, Eastern Europe, South Africa, etc), aftermath of forest clearance of thin top-soil to 'create' grazing grounds (Amazon basin) and forest fires (Indonesia), and advancing desert (Sub-Saharan Africa), etc.
• Would  guidelines for use of marginal soils, soils on steep slopes, wetlands and the soils capability as related to land use could be of use .
• Extension education on soils is inadequate at present; needs enhancement.

Comments on the Proposed Voluntary Guidelines on Soil Management.

The draft is refreshingly technical and is comprehensive with respect to the areas it has taken into consideration. I find it well-structured, nicely reasoned, and very useful to anyone who understands and cares about the vital role the soil plays in our lives.

I wonder whether its authors chose 'cultivated soil' with a dash of the soil in urban areas in order to keep within the scope of 'management', which is obviously unavoidable in this context. However, I would like to draw your attention to an aspect of soil conservation, which is very important but does not quite fit into the categories of soil guidelines are intended to cover.

They represent what we might call 'ruins of soil', i.e., abandoned strip mines (USA and Pacific),  large tracts of forest destroyed by uncontrolled logging (Burma and Indonesia), unfilled abandoned mines (Cornwall, Eastern Europe, South Africa, etc), aftermath of forest clearance of thin top-soil to 'create' grazing grounds (Amazon basin) and forest fires (Indonesia), and advancing desert (Sub-Saharan Africa), etc.

These ruins of soil are often contiguous with arable lands or some kind of forest. Their interaction with less ruined soils, though not fully understood, can only have an adverse effect on the qualities of the soil the guidelines are intended to preserve.

I think it would be wise to describe in the guidelines some actions the authorities may take not only to mitigate the ill effects of ruine lands on its more fortunate counterpart, but also to reclaim it in order to increase the available ecosystem services.

Of course, how this may be achieved will vary according to climate, geography and the composition of the ruined soil involved. But, as we are not talking about agricultural cultivation here, a comparatively small investment in resources may enable us to harvest many a climatic and ecosystem service benefit.

Cheers!

Lal Manavado.

Dear Eduardo Mansur,

I represent the Asociación Costarricense de la Ciencia del Suelo and also I belong to the Alianza Regional de Centroamérica, México y Caribe.

I would like to give some opinions about the document.

I will write in Spanish, but at the end I will try to translate.

SPANISH VERSION

En general, me parece un documento muy bueno, pero considero que es muy extenso.

Creo que los capítulos 1 y 2 son un resumen de definiciones y justificaciones ya presentes en documentos anteriores. Estas secciones consumen las 12 primeras páginas del documento, y la Guía, que comienza en esa página está constituida solo por 8 páginas más. Creo que se lograría más impacto concentrándose en la GUIA.

Yo trataría de resumir el capítulo introductorio empezando prácticamente en el “Scope of the Guidelines” y en el momento en que se hace referencia a que “las directrices se centrarán en los aspectos técnicos y biológicos” del MSS haría referencia a un APENDICE 3, que se ubicaría en la parte posterior del documento, en el que incluiría todo el capítulo 2.

Me parece que este capítulo 2 debe servir de referencia pero no ser el centro del documento como está ahora. Al nivel de este Guía no creo que sea necesario repasar las bases con ese detalle, basta con decir que fueron el soporte, referirlas al APENDICE y concentrarse en las directrices. Colocado en la parte de atrás se conservaría todo lo valioso de su información, que está muy adecuadamente organizada, pero sin interferir en la fluidez del documento.

Además, al ponerlo en el Apéndice sería coherente con el resumen que se presenta en el otro APÉNDICE, el 2, en el que se resume la situación mundial que también se tomó como base.

These are only some opinions related with the structure of the document. In other hand, I support also the comments sent by Olegario Muñiz Presidente del Comité Directivo de la Alianza Regional por el Suelo para Centro América, México y El Caribe.

Thanks a lot to take in account my opinions,

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

I think it is a very good document, but very extensive.

Chapters 1 and 2 are a summary of definitions and justifications already present in earlier documents. These sections consume the first 12 pages of the document and the Guide, which begins on that page, comprised only 8 pages more. I think a biggest impact would be achieved by focusing on the guide.

I try to summarize the introductory chapter starting practically in the "Scope of the Guidelines" and at the time referred to "the guidelines will focus on technical and biological aspects" of the MSS you could refer to Appendix 3, (located on the back of the document), which could include all chapter 2.

This chapter 2 serve as a good reference but it is not the center of the document, as it is now. It is not necessary to review the basis in detail. It will be enough to say that support the guide, refer them at the appendix, and focus on the guidelines. Placed in the back we preserve this valuable information but without interfering with the flow of the document.

In this way, all the documents that support the guidelines will be at the end: (Appendix 2  the world situation, Appendix 3 Technical bases)