Operational arm of the GSP

It operates in a context of major threats against

- limited soil resources in all regions and

- urgent need for countries to take collective and individual action to reverse worrisome trends.

It was formulated in response to a specific request from the first GSP Plenary Assembly (June 2013)

The Healthy Soils Facility is directly linked to the five GSP pillars and it enables the execution of the Global and Regional Implementation Plans

Priority for FAO Resource mobilization

Voluntary Contributions by

Resources Partners (HSF)

FAO assessed Contributions

(Regular Programme)

The GSP is supported by two sources of funds, as follows:

FAO assessed contributions

The GSP Secretariat Under the overall guidance and leadership by FAO Assistant Director General– Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department and the Director of Landand Water Division (AGL):

o As per the terms of reference of the GSP Secretariat, FAO is committed todedicate one Professional Technical Officer and one General Service Staff(biennium 2016-2017/USD 530 000).

o On a part time basis, technical officers also from other divisions anddecentralized offices with competence on soil issues.

o Short-term assistance via Consultants, Internships, Volunteers, andSecondments;

FAO assessed contributionsPeriod 2015-2016

Contributions Managed through Land and Water Division, AGL

o Organization of two Plenary Assemblies (one in 2015 and one in 2016); Totalestimated cost ~ USD160 000;

o Implementation of the Regional Soil Partnerships: Asian and the NENA SoilPartnership were covered thanks to the FAO assessed contribution with a total cost ofUSD150 000.

o Consultants/staff in the decentralized offices for a total cost of USD70 000.

Total Budget for various activities covered by the FAO Assessed Contributions in 2015-2016: USD380 000;

Total Budget for staff covered by the FAO Assessed Contributions in 2015-2016:USD570 000;

Overall Total in two years 2015-2016: USD 950 000;

FAO assessed contributions

Technical Cooperation ProjectsMainstreaming soil related activities to the GSP when prioritized at national level:

ONGOING PROJECTS 2016-2018:

TCP/CMB/3602 “National Soil Information and Land Suitability Evaluation System for Cambodia”USD297 000.

TCP/AFG/3601 “Afghanistan Soil Information System” USD497 000.

TCP/SUD/3601 “Sudan Soil Information System and Digital Soil Mapping” USD380 000.

TCP/LES/XX “Lesotho Soil Information System” USD400 000.

TOTAL: $1,574,000

PIPELINE 2016-2018: Regional TCP South America

The European Commission

The Russian Federation

The Swiss Confederation

The Austrian Hail Insurance Company

The Kingdom of Thailand

The International Association of Agriculture Production Insurers

The International Fertilizer Industry Association

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

OUR RESOURCE PARTNERS

Contributions for 2016-2018

Contributions for IYS 2015

Contribution for 2015-2016

Funds mobilized

Ongoing Projects 2016-2018HSF

GCP /GLO/650/RUS (RUSSIAN FEDERATION) $1,000,000

GCP /GLO/663/EC (EUROPEAN UNION) $1,696,753

GCP /GLO/671/MULSWITZERLAND $250,000 TOTAL $2,946,753

TCP Projects: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Sudan, Lesotho

TOTAL $1,574,000

GRAND TOTAL $4,520,753

SUPPORT PROVIDED DIRECTLY BY PARTNERS (IN-KIND SUPPORT)

Secondment of an expert to the GSP Secretariat by the Federal Institute forGeosciences and Natural Resources, Germany (June 2015-July 2016). Possibleextension of one more year.

Two interns provided by the Eurasian Food Security Center (Russia)

Our gratitude to all who supported the work of the GSP by attending themeetings which is already a very important contribution.

Healthy Soils Facility (HSF) = Resource mobilization tool

A lot was achieved in 3 years while only 10% of the initial target has been obtained so far (6 out of 64 millions)

Much more could be achieved if the target is to be reached

Your support is needed !

$6,421,753

What we did with those resources?

Various capacity development sessions

Areas where resources are needed!

We need your help !

• A gap in the funding pipelines would have negative impact on ongoing activities.

• Institutional arrangement is now set, need to move into full execution of the plans of action and regional implementation plans.

• Lack of fund would limit capacity to support further GSP implementation.