Policy & Governance for Soil Biodiversity and Soil Health Webinar | Insights and Takeaways 

Soil biodiversity and soil health are gaining recognition as important strategic priorities for Europe. However, translating this ambition into tangible changes on farms, in forests, and in urban areas presents a significant challenge. While policies can provide guidance, successful implementation hinges on several factors: how rules are applied at the national level, whether incentives genuinely lower risks and costs for land managers, and whether business models can sustain soil-friendly practices in the long term. These practical challenges were at the heart of our recent webinar. Here are the key highlights and takeaways from our expert speakers.

The Soil Monitoring Law: Moving Toward Ambitious Soil Protection 

Caroline Heinzel (European Environmental Bureau, EEB), Policy Officer for Nature, set the policy context by linking the EU Soil Strategy for 2030 to the adoption of the EU Soil Monitoring Law,  a long-overdue first step toward EU-wide soil protection. The law establishes a shared framework for monitoring and assessing soil health across Member States, covering critical issues like soil biodiversity, pesticides, PFAS, brownfield reuse, and contaminated sites. 

However, Caroline warned that the law’s ambition was weakened during negotiations:

“It was further watered down every step of the way, and it still lacks binding targets or a legal obligation to actually improve soil health.”

National implementation will be crucial in this context. Member States will have three years to transpose the legislation, with significant flexibility. Therefore, strong implementation and enforcement are essential to prevent a “race to the bottom” and to motivate countries to exceed the minimum compliance standards. In addition, due to the low ambition of the law, soil protection must also progress via other frameworks and initiatives, including the EU Mission: A Soil Deal for Europe or the Common Agricultural Policy.

Caroline also noted that soil policy will roll out amidst broader political pressures for simplification and deregulation. She argued that protecting soil is inseparable from protecting nature as a whole and that when environmental laws are weakened in the name of competitiveness, soil health will suffer.

She also highlighted the #HandsOffNature campaign as a crucial effort to defend the environmental rules that underpin soil health.

Incentives for Soil-Health Business Models: The SoilValues Toolbox 

Erik Mathijs (SoilValues) introduced the Valeurs du sol incentive toolbox, an interactive tool designed to help farmers and other stakeholders identify incentives to support the adoption of soil-health practices in agriculture.

This toolbox emphasizes external incentives from both public policies and private entities, including corporations, banks, insurers, investors, project intermediaries, donors, and policy organizations. Erik importantly highlighted that these incentives need to be rooted in everyday realities.

“Incentives should not distract from farm realities. There is currently insufficient attention paid to the most important effect of soil health practices: farmer income.”

A key feature of the toolbox is its ability to match incentives to different transition stages, from early experimentation to validation and consolidation. This acknowledges that financing needs, and the mix of concessional versus market-based support, change over time. To ensure it is practical on the ground, the toolbox groups incentives into three categories (financing, de-risking, and technical assistance) and includes country and context filters.

New Business Models for Soil Health: Barriers and Governance 

Valentina Materia (InBestSoil) focused on a practical question: if soil-friendly practices work in the field, what does it take for them to spread and stick across farms, value chains, and communities? She explained that InBestSoil looks beyond practices alone, linking soil health indicators to the economic viability of interventions through new business models developed across Living Labs and Lighthouses.

Valentina highlighted that business models focused on soil health cannot depend only on profit. InBestSoil adopts a broader definition of value that encompasses environmental and social benefits. This approach applies not only to individual farms but also to collectives and partnerships. The project identifies “archetypes” of sustainable business models and adapts them to the context of soil health, incorporating models that are based on cultural values and the reciprocal relationship between people and the land. She also broke down the specific barriers that make adoption difficult at three distinct levels: 

• Practice level: Higher management complexity, the need for new knowledge, unclear performance measurement, and limited reward standards.
• Business model level: Value-chain and contractual barriers, technological limits.
• System level: Dominant market logic, weak coordination, and financing solutions not designed for regenerative transitions.

Valentina concluded with a focus on governance, noting that „scaling soil health requires the right conditions to anchor these practices into wider systems. This means creating shared value systems, open dialogues, and also spaces where tensions can be discussed, all supported by clear rules and governance mechanisms.”

Policy Incentives for Soil Health: Lessons from the InBestSoil Case Studies

Caterina Guidi (InBestSoil) brought the discussion back to the everyday practical reality of incentives, examining what exists today and why they can be difficult to use. She presented findings from a policy incentives work package that combined an extensive literature mapping (2010–2023) with stakeholder interviews across InBestSoil case studies to understand which policy and economic schemes are being used, how they work, and what holds back uptake.

While soil protection is embedded across multiple policy areas, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remains the dominant framework in practice. Across the case studies, subsidies and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) were the most frequently chosen instruments, while options like biodiversity offsets, grants, and risk-financing schemes were rarely used.

Caterina highlighted the main trade-offs of these approaches:

• PES schemes can support sustainable practices and improve the way we value ecosystem services, but they often face challenges related to measurement accuracy, equity, and public perception.
• Subsidy schemes make soil-friendly practices financially attractive, but they can create inequalities and strain public budgets.

According to Caterina, the biggest gap is implementation:

“Many schemes are difficult to access at a national level due to administrative burdens, limited guidance, and weak monitoring capacity. This creates a misalignment between policy design and practical land management needs.”

Realities also differ heavily by sector. The forestry sector faces uncertainty about what “good practice” actually means; agriculture faces rigid eligibility rules and digital barriers; and urban stakeholders often perceive soil policy as distant and difficult to translate into local contexts.

Looking forward, Caterina concluded that future policy design must prioritize flexibility, local relevance, and practical implementation. We need to reduce administrative burdens, build local capacity, and provide soil-type-specific guidance, especially for underrepresented sectors like forest and urban soils. These insights will feed directly into InBestSoil’s upcoming policy recommendations.

Post-Webinar Reflections

• The EU Soil Monitoring Law is a vital first step, but its real impact depends on strong national execution and enforcement, not just doing the bare minimum. 
• Implementation will be shaped by real-world constraints: capacity, guidance, and monitoring systems at the national and local level.
• Incentives must match the transition stage. Early experimentation requires more flexible, concessional support, while later phases can bring in market-based finance. 
• Business models are not just about individual farms; they rely on partnerships, good governance, and shared value across entire supply chains. 
• Measurement and practicality remain constant hurdles. We need tools that are scientifically credible, yet fair and easy for land managers to use. 
• The path forward requires a mix of smart policy, accessible finance, and on-the-ground learning adapted to local contexts and different land uses. 

If you missed the session, you can watch the full recording on the Soil Community event page.

Stay connected with our platform for upcoming webinars, including the next session focusing on soil biodiversity: Meso and Macro Fauna.