Policy brief and innovation roadmaps

2 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 NOVASOIL INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Grant agreement ID: 101091268 Policy and Innovation Roadmap Project NOVASOIL Project title INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Work Package WP4 Envisioning incentives and policy solutions Deliverable 4.2 Policy Innovation Roadmap Period covered M10-M24 Publication date 30/11/2024 Dissemination level PU Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this report UNIFE Authors Fabio Bartolini, Greta Winkler, Alexandra Langlais-Hesse; Eriselda Canaj and Michele Gentile, Barbora Nohlova Contributors All partners Ref. Ares(2024)8532501 - 29/11/2024 Ref. Ares(2025)8339499 - 02/10/2025 3 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES Main text was produced by Fabio Bartolini and Greta Winkler. Further inputs and revision rounds were performed and shown in the table below. TABLE REVISION HISTORY DELIVERABLE Row Version Date Reviewers Description 1 V1.0 31/10/2024 Alexandra Langlais - Hesse Input section 4 and 6 2 V2.0 18/11/2024 Eriselda Canaj and Michele Gentile Review section 6 3 V3.0 25/11/2024 Barbora Nohlova Review section 5 4 V4.0 27/11/2024 Francisco Jose Blanco Velazquez General review 5 6 4 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Project Consortium Nº Participant organisation name Country 1 EVENOR TECH SLU ES 2 LEIBNIZ-ZENTRUM FUER AGRARLANDSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG DE 3 ZEMNIEKU SAEIMA LV 4 NEW BULGARIAN UNIVERSITY BU 5 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS FR 6 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 7 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN DE 8 ASSEMBLEE DES REGIONS EUROPEENNES FRUITIERES LEGUMIERES ET HORTICOLES FR 9 ISTITUTO DELTA ECOLOGIA APPLICATA SRL IT 10 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA IT 11 WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY NL 12 CENTRE OF ESTONIAN RURAL RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE EE 13 UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID ES 14 UNIVERSITA DI PISA IT 15 ASOCIACION AGRARIA JOVENES AGRICULTORES DE SEVILLA ES 16 UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS GB 5 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Table of contents Summary 1 Objective 7 2 Case studies: countries and business models 8 3 Policy Coherence and legal aspects 10 3.1 Policy coherence 10 3.1.1 Literature Review 10 3.1.2 Results 11 ▪ POLITICAL COMMITMENT 14 ▪ COORDINATION MECHANISMS 16 ▪ MONITORING SYSTEM 17 ▪ POLICY OBJECTIVES 18 ▪ POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 18 ▪ CONTEXTUAL FACTORS 19 3.2 Legal Aspects 20 4 Institutional analysis and institutional gaps 29 4.1 Literature background 29 4.2 Results: Institutions for Soil Governance 32 ▪ ITALY 33 ▪ SPAIN 34 ▪ ESTONIA 34 ▪ BULGARIA 35 ▪ LATVIA 35 ▪ NETHERLANDS 36 ▪ GERMANY 37 ▪ OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS 38 5 Pathways towards sustainable business models for soil health 39 6 Policy implications 44 7 Synthesis 47 8 Appendix I - Case studies’ incentives 50 9 Appendix II - Institutions involved 54 6 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 7 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 1 Objective Based on D.o.W., task 4.2 (M10-24) “Policy Innovation Lab”, The deliverable contains a synthesis of individual policy and innovation lab reports (WD4.1, provided ad month 20) and the identification of the policy and innovation roadmaps. in month 24 and will provide the list of promising incentives and business models to be tested in task 4.3.” The document synthesises the individual Policy Innovation Lab (PIL) reports, which are available online (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14246498) , while a brief description of the case studies is available in Annex 1. The report is organized into 5 sections; the first one gives an overview of the country's case studies and related business models participating in Novasoil PILs. Please note that two case studies originally in the project were not able to deliver the final report, i.e. University of Leeds and LEIBNIZ-ZENTRUM FUER AGRARLANDSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG, either for low person months number or internal availability issues during the timeframe of this task. Section 3 offers an overview of interviews’ results of the policy mix concerning soil health on an overall EU level as well as the broader context of legal aspects concerning (upcoming) soil regulations. Section 4 goes more into details of institutional framework and specific business models in the different country case studies, to provide insights of soil governance modes. Section 5 outlines pathways towards soil health business models as envisioned by the participants of the individual PIL, including drivers, changes and solutions needed. Section 6 reflects on the policy implications that might be relevant to facilitate implementation of sustainable business models for soil health. 8 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 2 Case studies: countries and business models Given the diversity of business models (BM) analysed in the project, we present them here in an order coherent with the subsequent sections (...). Therefore, the BMs range from a highly public subsidized form to supply chains and hybrid contracts to certification schemes and private funds. 1. ITALY Long-term experiments (LTEs) carried out on large plots/at field scales at the Centre for Agri-environmental Research "Enrico Avanzi" of the University of Pisa. Two field experiments focus on applying conservation agriculture techniques (i.e., reduced or no tillage, cover crops), whereas the third deals with organic vs conventional farming systems. Thanks to the standard field plot size, soil fertility, crop yield and rheological quality, weed abundance and composition, energy use efficiency, and economic balance are regularly assessed. 2. SPAIN Integrated production in olive groves seeks to balance agricultural production with the protection of the environment and human health, applying practices that improve the sustainability and efficiency of cultivation and improve soil structure and fertility. Integrated production also focuses on the biological control of pests and diseases, which reduces the need for chemical pesticides and minimises the negative impact on soil microbiota. By reducing the use of chemicals and encouraging the presence of beneficial organisms in the soil, integrated production techniques promote also biodiversity which can contribute to the overall stability and health of the agricultural ecosystem 3. ESTONIA Certified seed producers, is a BM that require farmers to improve management techniques that contribute to soil health, compared to those who use uncertified seed on wider area. Practices include less pesticide, improved nutrient uptake from the soil and of carbon and nitrogen compounds from the air. 4. BULGARIA Vertical integration of local, regional and traditional wine sector farmers adopting conservative agricultural practices (hedges or rows of trees, terraces; non-productive crops and waste biomass; buffer strips; mulching with pruning leftovers) to reduce soil erosion. Moreover, they are participating to the program for local traditional and regional traditional products, aiming at revitalization and support of the regional economy. 5. LATVIA Digital map, "Digital Showcase”, serves as an interactive platform where agricultural fields managed with climate-friendly tillage practices are highlighted. These practices include direct seeding, strip tilling, and minimal or reduced tillage using harrows and cultivators. The aim is to raise public awareness, create a societal demand and drive a shift towards more environmentally responsible farming. 6. LATVIA Agroforestry: Inter-cropping, implemented in 2011, was specifically designed to investigate whether combining trees with crops on previously degraded farmland could yield significant improvements in soil health, ecosystem services, and economic returns, thus providing a comprehensive, sustainable solution to land degradation. 9 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 7. ITALY Perennial aromatic crops converting conventional cropping systems based on annual cereal crops to organic cropping systems based in a hilly environment. It focuses on profiting from soil fertility and health data, crop yield and quality, agri-environmental aspects, and landscape valorisation collected at the farm level. It derives from an integrated supply chain project funded in the framework of the EU’s Rural Development Policy, which involved research centres, private companies, farmers, and public administrations in driving force of rural sustainable development through new cropping systems and management innovations. 8. SPAIN Tamarguillo Park. Sustainable and resilient urban green area, improving local citizens well-being, reducing heat islands and improving water reservoirs and drainage for potential floods. Community gardens to enhance citizens involvement, facilities provided by green areas can cause positive impact on local commerce enriching the economic value of the neighbourhood. 9. ITALY Sand district case study seeks to guarantee long term viability of agriculture in the area, establishing local governance with shared objectives. To reach and enlarge participation, it seeks to enhance the territorial organization of farmers, adopt shared regulations, access to shared incentives and interact with local administrators and institutions. Set in Italy, as in the previous two case studies, beyond CAP instruments, this initiative seeks to rely on further territorial and private incentives. 10. NETHERLANDS Rabo Carbon Bank, is a carbon credit trade that allow the remuneration of extensification practices and creating public goods is important to allow such business models to become self-sustained. Research shows that current financial incentives might not be good enough to make farmers opt for carbon credit trade contracts, especially when they require long-term (>10 years) commitment. 11. GERMANY The Soil Fertility Fund of the Swiss Organic Farming Foundation (BFF) was established to counteract soil degradation and help to ensure that as much fertile soil as possible can be passed on to future generations. It provides financial support to create “degrees of freedom” for farmers implement appropriate measures and be supported in maintaining soil fertility on their farm. The financial support is based on donations and further offers expert advice financed for the same purpose. 12. GERMANY The CO2-Land initiative aims to make a significant contribution to climate protection by using scientifically proven methods to create CO2 sinks in arable soils. By creating climate certificates, these are offset by farmers who, in return, commit to continuously increasing the organic carbon content of their soils. The gains from the certificates’ sale are used to (partially) compensate farmers for their additional efforts. 10 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 3 Policy Coherence and legal aspects 3.1 Policy coherence 3.1.1 Literature Review This emerging literature represents a new paradigm of a “transformative” or “mission-oriented " approach to innovation policy that covers several areas of intervention (Bergek et al., 2023). This approach is driven by a complex process that involves institutional mechanisms, policy interaction, and their effects. Soil health challenges necessitate a multifaceted approach integrating varied policy dimensions and aligning economic, social, and environmental goals. The definition of the soil health concept implies facing challenges at multiple spatial scales and covering interconnected SDGs (Lehmann et al., 2020). Figure 1 provides the scale and level of SDGs attached to soil health Figure 1. Scale and level of SDGs attached to soil health (Lehmann et al., 2020 modified) According to OECD, (2016) the Policy Coherence Analysis considers three interconnected aspects of the policy-making process: 1) the institutional mechanism that facilitates coherence, 2) the interactions between policies across different sectors, and the key contextual factors that can either promote or obstruct efforts towards sustainable development (known as enablers and disablers), and 3) the impacts of policies, including effects that cross borders and influence future generations. Due to the ex-ante analysis, we are limited to the first two aspects: institutional mechanisms and policy interaction. These consider the function and capacities of institutions to formulate policy and how and in which way policies across several domains interact in achieving soil health as defined in each case study. Table 1 shows the hierarchical levels of policy coherence. Soil Health Human well-being (SDG3) Carbon sequestration (SDG13 ) Aesthetics; Biodiversity, Habitat (SDG 15) F Food security & Insitition (SDG 16) Soil Quality Water Quality (SDG6) Erosion; soil texture (SDG15) Field -> Farm -> Local -> Regional -> Country -> Global Soil Fertility Profit (SDG8) Yileds (SDG2) Private property -> Common Good 17 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 and standardised data collection, which could provide a more reliable basis for evidence-based decision-making. ▪ MONITORING SYSTEM The results highlight significant inconsistencies and limitations in mechanisms for measuring impacts and ensuring compliance with soil health targets and limits across the examined case studies. While some regions implement ad hoc monitoring programs (e.g., Germany's long-standing soil sampling program), others lack robust systems for tracking soil health indicators, relying instead on indirect measures or voluntary compliance. These differences highlight a critical need for harmonised approaches and improved data collection and analysis. Some case studies report the potential benefit of employing remote sensing technologies, like satellite imagery, for monitoring but still require a methodology to calibrate and validate findings. This highlights the need for a more integrated approach that combines advanced technologies with traditional methods for a more complete picture. The requirement of physical soil samples for assessing specific indicators (e.g., organic matter) adds another layer of complexity, potentially hindering the efficiency and costeffectiveness of broader-scale monitoring efforts. The lack of consistency in the availability and use of specific indicators (e.g., biodiversity, soil compaction) across the case studies further underscores the challenge of comparing outcomes and establishing benchmarks for evaluating soil health. The absence of clearly defined metrics and standardized measurement protocols makes it difficult to effectively assess the impact of policies and practices. This is even exacerbated by the prevalence of non-binding targets and voluntary compliance mechanisms for soil health. While incentive-based approaches can be valuable, they often fail to produce widespread adoption of soil-friendly practices. The lack of stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms weakens the effectiveness of soil health initiatives, particularly in cases where the absence of robust monitoring tools exacerbates the situation. Several case studies note that despite existing guidelines, the commitment to soil health remains too weak, especially when designed at local and decentralised levels. The absence of sufficient dedicated funding and personnel for soil monitoring is a common theme, hampering the potential to make substantial improvements. Additionally, the significant variation across regions in institutional capacity and resources further compounds the challenges of achieving harmonized soil health standards and consistent implementation of effective policies. A concerted effort is needed to improve data collection, strengthen monitoring mechanisms, harmonize indicators, and ensure adequate resources are committed to achieving consistent progress towards achieving soil health targets across all regions. 18 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 ▪ POLICY OBJECTIVES The results highlight the significant influence of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on soil health policies across the examined regions. For instance, the objective of soil conservation is enshrined in Article 6 of Regulation 2021/2115, and it is further stated in Article 47, lett.a of the same regulation, among the priorities supported under the CAP sectoral intervention envelope. However, its effectiveness is often debated. The reliance on non-binding measures, such as agri-environmental schemes and eco-schemes, is a recurring theme. In fact, voluntary measures often fail to achieve widespread adoption due to their non-mandatory nature (Abadi et al., 2020; Barreiro-Hurle et al., 2023). Farmers' participation is influenced by economic factors and the perceived benefits compared to the potential costs of adopting more environmentally friendly practices. This indicates the need for a more targeted policy to ensure the widespread adoption of soil-friendly agricultural practices (Raggi et al., 2015). The recent approval of a nature restoration law aiming, among other goals, at increasing the stock of organic carbon in cropland mineral soils, is a good example of well-targeted policies. Overall, the results emphasise the fact that soil health is often addressed only indirectly, as a part of broader policies addressing biodiversity, climate change, and water management. This indirect approach frequently results in fragmented and less effective measures than a dedicated soil health policy. While integrating soil health into multiple policy areas is a clear policy direction, it leads to a diffusion of responsibilities and diluted efforts across several DGs and stakeholders. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on non-binding targets and suggests the need for targeted policies and programs that prioritise soil health directly (Winkler et al., 2025). The lack of clear soil health targets beyond the overarching goals of the CAP further reinforces this observation. ▪ POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Our results confirm that while various funding sources exist (e.g., CAP subsidies, national and regional programs, and private investments), their allocation often lacks strategic focus and coordination, leading to fragmented efforts and weak outcomes. While providing significant funding, the dependency on CAP subsidies is often criticised for its indirect approach and insufficient funding for targeted soil health interventions. In most cases, the funding specifically allocated for soil health initiatives remains unclear and difficult to track. Even when figures are available, they often lack sufficient granularity, making it difficult to understand how resources are distributed to tackle the different sources of land degradation (Panagos et al., 2022). This lack of transparency makes assessing the effectiveness of funding allocation and identifying areas for improvement challenging. Private sector involvement in funding soil health initiatives is limited in most case studies, despite potential synergies between private interests and sustainable soil management, even in the case of carbon farming. The absence of robust mechanisms for attracting private investment in soil health 19 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 hampers the potential for innovation and wider adoption of sustainable practices. Wark consumer awareness for soil health and their willingness to support soil-friendly practices seem insufficient to generate substantial involvement and coordination across the food supply chains. The lack of policy consistency across different sectors poses a major challenge for effective soil health implementation. In several case studies, soil health is addressed indirectly, often fragmented across various agriculture-related policies, environmental protection, climate change, and water management. This lack of a holistic approach frequently results in conflicts, overlaps, and inefficiencies, ultimately hindering the implementation of effective soil conservation measures. The absence of a central authority responsible for coordinating policies and actions related to soil health significantly contributes to fragmented implementation. The lack of integrated strategies and clear lines of responsibility between different policy sectors (e.g., agriculture, environment) hampers the implementation of comprehensive soil health initiatives, with insufficient oversight and planning efforts often hindering implementation. While some case studies show efforts to integrate soil health concerns into broader policies (e.g., CAP eco-schemes), there is limited evidence of synergies between different policy sectors. Despite the acknowledged importance of linking soil health with biodiversity, climate change, and water resource management, there is a need for better coordination and harmonisation of policies across these areas to maximise the effectiveness of soil health interventions. Synergies between different sectors and stakeholders are essential for successful soil health implementation. The limited attention to fostering such cooperation leads to missed opportunities to leverage resources, knowledge, and initiatives across various sectors, ultimately hindering the collective efforts to improve soil health. This reinforces the need for stronger interministerial collaboration, coordinated multi-sectoral strategies, and publicprivate partnerships. ▪ CONTEXTUAL FACTORS The comparison across case studies highlights a complex interplay of enabling and disabling conditions influencing soil health initiatives. A prominent theme concerns on the lack of awareness and knowledge among farmers regarding soil health management practices. Bridging this knowledge gap requires effective training, education, and outreach programs tailored to the specific needs and contexts of the various farming communities. Another recurring challenge is the incentives, or lack thereof, for adopting soilfriendly practices. While subsidies and eco-schemes offer some financial support, they are often insufficient to fully compensate for the additional costs associated with sustainable farming methods, particularly in the face of market pressures and economic uncertainties. The inconsistent and sometimes misleading policy frameworks, including frequent changes in regulations and funding mechanisms, further undermine the long-term 20 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 strategy of soil health initiatives. In fact, under an unstable and unpredictable policy environment, the associated uncertainty about future conditions can postpone the soil health investment decision(Di Corato and Zormpas, 2022) Other disabling factors include bureaucratic hurdles excessive regulations, and the limited integration of soil health concerns into policies. In fact, the fragmented nature of policy initiatives, often addressing soil health indirectly through other policies (e.g., environmental protection, biodiversity conservation), hinders the development and implementation of comprehensive and effective soil health strategies. On the other hand, enabling factors include a growing awareness among consumers of the importance of sustainably produced food, increasing demand for organically farmed products, and the emergence of carbon markets. These factors offer both economic incentives and market-driven pressures for promoting soil health, helping to align consumer preferences with sustainable practices. The development of innovative business models that integrate soil health into existing agricultural systems, as well as successful multi-stakeholder collaborations, also represent other enabling factors. 3.2 Legal Aspects The currently available European legal framework for soil health is based on 3 points: 1. the dependence on soil. Human beings and our ecosystems depend on soil as a source of food, clean water and habitat. It is also the planet's largest terrestrial carbon reservoir. "Too few of us realise that our future lies beneath our feet. Soils and the multitude of organisms they support are our source of food, biomass, fibres and raw materials; they regulate the cycle of water, carbon and nutrients and make life on earth possible. It takes several thousand years to form a few centimetres of this magical mantle" (COM (2021) 699 of 17 November 2021, p. 1). 2. a reminder of the limited, non-renewable nature of this resource. Soil Strategy, p. 10 - "Land and soil are fragile and their limited resources are subject to an ever-increasing thirst for space: urban sprawl and soil sealing are depleting nature and turning precious ecosystems into concrete deserts. This process often affects the most fertile soils and 21 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 undermines the ability of farmers and foresters to earn a decent living 1 2 3 3. an emphasis on the degraded state of the soil. More than 60% of EU soil is not in good condition. More specifically, "It is estimated that around 60-70% of soil in the European Union is in poor health (European Commission (2020), Caring for soil is caring for life)" (COM 2021, 699, p. 1). While this factual framework has always remained the same, justifying an urgent legal response to preserve soil, this response has evolved. While offering a single legal response to soil is still at the heart of European discussions, the way in which this is achieved has varied (I). What is more, the content of the latest legislative version of the Soil Directive, which includes the general guidelines of 17 June 2024 , pending the final reading by the European Parliament, strikes a subtle balance between setting common requirements for all EU Member States and leaving Member States considerable flexibility in this area, both in terms of assessing soil condition and in terms of sustainable soil management (II). 3.2.1 A unique legal response dedicated to soils: entrepreneurial approach and focused on monitoring (two new features - "soil health" and "soil management"). Interest in soil legislation is not new. A soil strategy in 2006, followed by a legislative proposal on soil, signalled the desire to fill a legal vacuum, which ended with the withdrawal of this proposal in 2013. This failed attempt at framework legislation on soil was driven by the same general ambition as the current legislative proposal (the 2022 legislative proposal). As pointed out in the European Union Strategy for Soil Protection 2030 - Harvesting the fruits of healthy soil for people, food, nature and climate of 17 November 2021https://euc-wordedit.officeapps.live.com/we/wordeditorframe.aspx?ui=en-US&rs=itIT&wopisrc=https://unifeit.sharepoint.com/sites/FabioGreta/_vti_bin/wopi.ash 1 The agricultural land lost between 1990 and 2006 due to soil sealing in EU countries had a production capacity equivalent to 6 million tonnes of wheat per year [Gardi et al (2014)]. 2 Scientific Advisory Board of the European Academies (2018), Opportunities for soil sustainability in Europe. 3 The impact of overall EU consumption on deforestation is estimated at over 9 million hectares (ha) lost between 1990 and 2008 to meet the demand for imports of agricultural and livestock products into the EU. Source: Consumption Impact Study - Forests - Environment. 22 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 x/files/d490f55809e74751bd0ff0dcfd4dd0cf&wdorigin=TEAMSMAGLEV.teamsSdk_ns.rwc&wdexp=TEAMSTREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1732795121229&wdenableroaming=1&mscc=1& hid=014D68A1-1047-A000-98F6ECA5CE9D5721.0&uih=sharepointcom&wdlcid=enUS&jsapi=1&jsapiver=v2&corrid=95561c93-3a8a-86dc-9c483b41cc7d2146&usid=95561c93-3a8a-86dc-9c483b41cc7d2146&newsession=1&sftc=1&uihit=docaspx&muv=1&cac=1&sams=1&m tf=1&sfp=1&sdp=1&hch=1&hwfh=1&dchat=1&sc={"pmo":"https://unifeit.sharepoi nt.com","pmshare":true}&ctp=LeastProtected&rct=Normal&csc=1&instantedit =1&wopicomplete=1&wdredirectionreason=Unified_SingleFlush#_ftn4 4 and announcing this legislative proposal, "the lack of specific European legislation in this area has been highlighted by many 5 https://euc-wordedit.officeapps.live.com/we/wordeditorframe.aspx?ui=en-US&rs=itIT&wopisrc=https://unifeit.sharepoint.com/sites/FabioGreta/_vti_bin/wopi.ash x/files/d490f55809e74751bd0ff0dcfd4dd0cf&wdorigin=TEAMSMAGLEV.teamsSdk_ns.rwc&wdexp=TEAMSTREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1732795121229&wdenableroaming=1&mscc=1& hid=014D68A1-1047-A000-98F6ECA5CE9D5721.0&uih=sharepointcom&wdlcid=enUS&jsapi=1&jsapiver=v2&corrid=95561c93-3a8a-86dc-9c483b41cc7d2146&usid=95561c93-3a8a-86dc-9c483b41cc7d2146&newsession=1&sftc=1&uihit=docaspx&muv=1&cac=1&sams=1&m tf=1&sfp=1&sdp=1&hch=1&hwfh=1&dchat=1&sc={"pmo":"https://unifeit.sharepoi nt.com","pmshare":true}&ctp=LeastProtected&rct=Normal&csc=1&instantedit =1&wopicomplete=1&wdredirectionreason=Unified_SingleFlush#_ftn5 as being largely responsible for the alarming state of our soils"[6] . This strategy stems from the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy of 20 May 2020, itself an offshoot of the Green Deal. However, the legislative framework currently being developed falls short of what was hoped for (1.1). Furthermore, while the existence of a single piece of legislation for soil is an approach shared with the previous legislation, it differs in that it focuses on the good health of the soil. In this way, it creates a link between soil health and the production of ecosystem services, and conveys a message of strategic investment to ensure good soil health (1.2). Insofar as the aim was to compensate for the lack of European legislation dedicated to an environmental component, and in relation to other existing legislation, it was expected that the level of legal protection would be equivalent to that of other legislation. The latest version of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the monitoring and resilience of soil, dated 17 June 2024, confirms that this is not the case (1.1.1) 4 COM (2021) 699. 5 The European Parliament, the European Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions, the EEA in its report "Europe's environment: state and prospects 2020" and the citizens and stakeholders who responded to the public consultation; see SWD(2021) xxx for more details. 23 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 and, more importantly, that the relevant legislation likely to take over this protection is either no longer in place or has failed to materialise (1.1.2). 3.2.2 Key point: A legal framework for soil protection is not equivalent to that of other natural ecosystems The issue behind the development of legislation dedicated to soil has always been explicit. As the 2021 European Soil Strategy points out, "Apart from certain existing EU legal provisions on soil protection 6 and the actions undertaken as part of the 2006 Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection 7 , the EU has so far been unable to provide itself with an adequate legal framework giving soil the same level of protection as that afforded to water, the marine environment and air". In view of the stated motivation, it was therefore legitimate to expect the introduction of legal protection for soil at least equivalent to that for other ecosystems, particularly given the urgency and importance of protecting it. To this end, the 2021 strategy points out that "knowledge of soil and recognition of its value have evolved considerably in recent years" 8 https://euc-wordedit.officeapps.live.com/we/wordeditorframe.aspx?ui=en-US&rs=itIT&wopisrc=https://unifeit.sharepoint.com/sites/FabioGreta/_vti_bin/wopi.ash x/files/130f1579231d4e9e9cec26db29660076&wdorigin=TEAMSMAGLEV.teamsSdk_ns.rwc&wdexp=TEAMSTREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1732613697721&wdenableroaming=1&mscc=1 &hid=FC9F67A1-E08E-A000-98F6E001500B5113.0&uih=sharepointcom&wdlcid=enUS&jsapi=1&jsapiver=v2&corrid=509f1b52-ca00-20da-11a6b7b726e3b745&usid=509f1b52-ca00-20da-11a6b7b726e3b745&newsession=1&sftc=1&uihit=docaspx&muv=1&cac=1&sams=1& mtf=1&sfp=1&sdp=1&hch=1&hwfh=1&dchat=1&sc={"pmo":"https://unifeit.sharep oint.com","pmshare":true}&ctp=LeastProtected&rct=Normal&csc=1&instanted it=1&wopicomplete=1&wdredirectionreason=Unified_SingleFlush#_ftn3 9 , justifying immediate legal consideration. However, Article 1st paragraph 1 (version of 17 June 2024, bold characters are those added by the Council in the general guidelines) states that "The Directive aims to establish a robust and coherent monitoring framework for all soils in the Union [_...]_, to promote continuous improvement of soil health, to maintain soil in a good state of health and to combat all aspects of soil degradation with a view to achieving a good state of soil health by 2050, [_...so that they can deliver different ecosystem services on a sufficient scale to meet 6 Requirements relating to specific aspects of soil protection under, for example, the Sewage Sludge Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Common Agricultural Policy, the Environmental Liability Directive, the Waste Framework Directive and the LULUCF Regulation. 7 Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, COM(2006)231. 8 COM (2021), 699, p. 5 9 COM 2021 699, p. 4. 24 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 environmental, societal and economic needs, prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss, increase resilience to natural disasters and food security, and to reduce soil contamination to levels no longer considered harmful to human health and the environment". Article 1(2) of this proposal for a directive provides the establishment of "a framework and measures for: a) the monitoring and evaluation of soil health; b) the sustainable management of soil; c) the management of contaminated sites". While the boundary between protection and management is particularly porous, the progressive nature of sustainable soil management means that it cannot be assumed that soil protection is and will be effective in a relatively short space of time, even though the state of degradation is being denounced and the urgent need for action is constantly being reiterated. According to article 3-9 of the proposed directive in its version of 17 June 2024, "soil health assessment" is "an assessment of soil health based on a measurement or estimation of descriptors". The General Guideline includes additional flexibilities for Member States with regard to soil measurements, including the possibility of using existing data and monitoring systems. It also lays down minimum quality requirements for laboratories analysing soil samples in order to ensure the comparability of soil measurements. The fact that the proposed directive on soil is less ambitious than had been hoped is in no way offset by other legislation applicable to soil, whether it be the legislation currently structuring the new Common Agricultural Policy, whose environmental ambitions have been revised downwards, or the recent legislation on nature restoration, which falls short of its environmental ambitions. 3.2.3 Key point: The failure to compensate for this shortfall by other relay legislation applicable to land Insofar as agricultural land covers more than 38% of European territory, the influence of the Common Agricultural Policy on the land concerned is undeniable. In its reformed version, the new Common Agricultural Policy has strengthened cross-compliance, i.e. the minimum conditions to be met in order to qualify for Common Agricultural Policy support. The 2021 soil strategy was clearly counting on this support to create a synergy of actions and support for soil. In fact, it states that "in the new CAP 10 , reinforced cross-compliance has been introduced for environmental protection. Cross-compliance defines the minimum requirements for more ambitious and sustainable agricultural policies, including environmentally and climate-friendly cultivation practices as part of ecological projects and support for rural development" 11 . The 10 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/capglance_fr. 11 COM 2021 699, p. 17. 25 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 components of cross-compliance include statutory management requirements and the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) that farmers must respect for the areas, animals and elements under their control. There are a number of good agricultural and environmental conditions, some of which are new and particularly relevant to soil. These include, for example, GAEC 1 on the obligation to maintain permanent grassland, GAEC 5 on the management of ploughing to reduce the risk of soil degradation, GAEC 6 on the ban on bare soil during sensitive periods, and GAEC9 on the ban on converting or ploughing permanent grassland in Natura 2000 sites. However, the recent revision of the CAP 12 in response to the reactions of the farming sector in Europe in early 2024 affects precisely this minimum environmental base. Good agricultural and environmental conditions in particular were at the heart of the recent review of the CAP. The review amends the rules relating to six of the existing nine Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditionshttps://euc-wordedit.officeapps.live.com/we/wordeditorframe.aspx?ui=en-US&rs=itIT&wopisrc=https://unifeit.sharepoint.com/sites/FabioGreta/_vti_bin/wopi.ash x/files/130f1579231d4e9e9cec26db29660076&wdorigin=TEAMSMAGLEV.teamsSdk_ns.rwc&wdexp=TEAMSTREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1732613697721&wdenableroaming=1&mscc=1 &hid=FC9F67A1-E08E-A000-98F6E001500B5113.0&uih=sharepointcom&wdlcid=enUS&jsapi=1&jsapiver=v2&corrid=509f1b52-ca00-20da-11a6b7b726e3b745&usid=509f1b52-ca00-20da-11a6b7b726e3b745&newsession=1&sftc=1&uihit=docaspx&muv=1&cac=1&sams=1& mtf=1&sfp=1&sdp=1&hch=1&hwfh=1&dchat=1&sc={"pmo":"https://unifeit.sharep oint.com","pmshare":true}&ctp=LeastProtected&rct=Normal&csc=1&instanted it=1&wopicomplete=1&wdredirectionreason=Unified_SingleFlush#_ftn4 13 and affects in particular those relating to soil. A careful reading of the changes made raises questions, as they run counter to urgent climatic and environmental requirements, insofar as they water down this recently strengthened minimum, even though environmental arguments and the fact that they are limited to "certain situations" or "exceptional situations" 14 have been put forward to justify many of these changeshttps://euc-wordedit.officeapps.live.com/we/wordeditorframe.aspx?ui=en-US&rs=itIT&wopisrc=https://unifeit.sharepoint.com/sites/FabioGreta/_vti_bin/wopi.ash x/files/130f1579231d4e9e9cec26db29660076&wdorigin=TEAMS12 Regulation (EU) 2024/1468 of the EP and of the Council of 14 May 2024 amending Regulations (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116 as regards standards for good agricultural and environmental condition, climate, environment and animal welfare programmes, amendment of CAP strategic plans, review of CAP strategic plans and exemptions from controls and penalties, OJ L, 2024/1468, 24.05.2024. 13 Exemptions from GAEC 1 and 8 had already been granted prior to this review. 14 Cons. 5, aforementioned regulation 2024/1468. 26 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 MAGLEV.teamsSdk_ns.rwc&wdexp=TEAMSTREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1732613697721&wdenableroaming=1&mscc=1 &hid=FC9F67A1-E08E-A000-98F6E001500B5113.0&uih=sharepointcom&wdlcid=enUS&jsapi=1&jsapiver=v2&corrid=509f1b52-ca00-20da-11a6b7b726e3b745&usid=509f1b52-ca00-20da-11a6b7b726e3b745&newsession=1&sftc=1&uihit=docaspx&muv=1&cac=1&sams=1& mtf=1&sfp=1&sdp=1&hch=1&hwfh=1&dchat=1&sc={"pmo":"https://unifeit.sharep oint.com","pmshare":true}&ctp=LeastProtected&rct=Normal&csc=1&instanted it=1&wopicomplete=1&wdredirectionreason=Unified_SingleFlush#_ftn6 15 (Langlais 2026). For example, the first GAEC relating to the obligation to maintain permanent grassland has been reconsidered in order to take into account the impact of the reduction in livestock numbers on this obligation, with a view to not penalising farmers who change their activities by turning to arable farming. Under GAEC 5, which is dedicated to combating soil erosion through appropriate practices, the review of this GAEC gives Member States greater flexibility in managing ploughing. Furthermore, GAEC 6, which is designed to protect soils through rules on minimum cover, has been reviewed. The definition of "sensitive periods" during which farmers are required to cover the soil on their plots is now variable, as are the practices to be implemented, taking into account local considerations and the variability 15 See in particular Cons. 5 of the above-mentioned regulation 2024/1468 "The general objectives of soil protection and soil quality pursued by GAEC standards 5, 6 and 7 are influenced by many factors, such as soil type, choice of crops, weather and climate conditions, past and present land use and farming systems, such as organic farming, which require a different approach to certain operations. Experience shows that, in certain situations, the imposition of various requirements without due consideration of these factors, such as restrictions on tillage or the obligation to sow during a given period, can have negative effects on certain soils or crops and may even run counter to the objective of soil protection. GAEC standard 9 prohibits the conversion or ploughing of permanent grassland designated as ecologically sensitive permanent grassland on Natura 2000 sites. Experience has shown, however, that exceptional situations may arise in which these ecologically sensitive permanent grasslands are damaged, for example by wild animals or invasive species, and appropriate measures to remedy these situations, including exceptions to the ban on ploughing the areas concerned in order to restore these permanent grasslands, may be necessary in order to ensure that the requirements of GAEC standard 9 contribute to the protection of habitats and species", see also cons. 7 of the said regulation, "Climatic conditions and the resulting impact on the conditions of agricultural land may prevent farmers and other beneficiaries from complying with the requirements of GAEC standards, such as the deadlines and periods for carrying out certain operations, in a given year. In order to avoid a situation in which farmers faced with such requirements are obliged, for example, to sow crops before a specific date when climatic conditions in a given year do not allow the necessary operations to be carried out, or only with serious negative effects on the soil, such as soil compaction (...)". 33 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 ▪ ITALY The case studies set in Italy highlight the presence of a quite great deal of formal institutions relating to soil, in particular at the regional level, and of public institutions devoted to environmental monitoring, to a small extent also related to soils. Yet, no specific national strategy or priority refers to soil, with the exception of the Hydrogeological risk protection agency (protezione civile) that is in charge of acting in emergency situations. All the policies currently addressing soil health are integrated within the larger frameworks (CAP, chemicals use regulations, regional decrees, etc.) and are subordinate to these, which complicates any coordinated action to address the issue. Therefore, the law application level (top right), has no clear rules to enforce and is failing to provide successful guidelines to informal institutions, such as farmers trade associations or groups, that might or not be committed to soil health. A proliferation of actors and institutions with conflicting priorities and understanding has not enabled a fruitful context for soil health business models proliferation and valorisation, even where potential for tourism or consumers’ centred initiatives would be there. The low political priority of soil health and the little availability of political instruments to address it is reflected in IIG highlighted is both an b) institutional void and c) structural hole, where missing clear regulations and priorities over soil health in Italy and lacking mediating actors are capable of transferring indications from formal institutions. For instance, regional agencies and agricultural extension to farmers and land users in order to ensure greater awareness and commitment to soil health. The role of boundary organizations, or in this case the adoption of clear soil related priorities from the already established institutions (e.g. ARPA) could possibly advise and guide in the process of regulation adoption and enforcement, also ensuring adequate advisory services to committed producers groups. Local communities, being affected by soil degradation in both the Po Delta and the hilly marginal Tuscany are highly involved, attempts to organize in face of this challenge, such as in the case of the bio districts, might call for stronger informal institutions pursuing soil health. The agricultural, industrial, and urban sectors are interconnected when implementing political land-use decisions and regulations, indirectly impacting soil health. An excellent example is the new urban-rural housing and infrastructure development and the associated policy steps. Since these are mainly managed at lower administrative level (i.e. municipality) still not commonly grounded in sustainable land management planning (i.e. at at territorial scale based on an overall), they burden the landscape and the human communities (especially the farmers) with additional threats and costs (e.g., poorly managed waste management, extensive land use leading to the decrease of landscape resilience against the impact of events related to climate change: land floods, droughts, and landslides). 34 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 ▪ SPAIN The case studies set in Spain shows an overall presence of institutions and regulations on a national level (mostly connected to farming sector and CAP) that separately deal with soil governance, yet very low uptake and commitment to soil health at local and regional levels is detected. If some urban planning departments are starting to develop green urban planning where soils are indirectly included, urban expansion and soil sealing still remain concrete trade-offs. Sustainable farming practices, both integrated and organic, mostly rely on the willingness of individual farmers to adopt such practices, and on the availability of subsidies to support uptake. Therefore, the resulting framework highlights an institutional void with the absence of formal institutions, in particular at the regional level, that regulate soil protection and guarantee support mechanisms for pursuing objectives of soil regeneration. The urban park case study highlights the diverging perspectives between neighbourhood organizations and NGOs on one hand, and the city council on the other. Initially designated green spaces, highly sought after by citizens, are often destinated to urban expansion. Moreover, a low presence of both informal institutions – with the exclusion of few committed producers’ associations (e.g. Riscal) or urban community gardens – and of public agencies and advisory services committed to soil health is preventing soil management practices and data from being understood and accessible to both the farming community and city administration, therefore evidencing a structural hole. To balance the overall institutional framework, stronger involvement and prioritization of soil health from city administration, regional authorities, and supply chain actors, as well as building and supporting a tailored advisory service and raising consumers’ and citizens' awareness, are required. ▪ ESTONIA The Estonian case study shows a quite strong environment of formal institutions, with a number of legislative instruments, extension services and knowledge institutions engaged with soil related topics. Estonian farmers are increasingly committing to sustainable farming practices, with a particular focus on soil health. Soil is vital for agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability, and Estonian farmers are adopting methods to improve soil quality, increase biodiversity, and reduce the environmental impact of farming. This commitment reflects both ecological concerns and the recognition that healthy soil is key to long-term farming success. While bureaucratic frameworks can provide incentives for improving soil health, they can also create barriers that hinder the adoption of sustainable practices. Farmers in Estonia, especially those operating on a smaller scale or with fewer resources, may struggle to meet the administrative demands while also tackling soil degradation. This might result in a structural hole between expectations of formal institutions and farmers’ livelihoods, e.g. capacity to access to incentive programs from small scale farmers. 35 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 On the other hand, the SoilHub, newly born in 2024, can be understood as a boundary organization, in charge of bringing communication and coordination between different levels, in particular policy making and research with farmers and land users, thus filling the institutional void occurring between governmental requirements and farmers capacities and willingness to implement healthy soil management. ▪ BULGARIA The case study set in Bulgaria shows a certain number of ministries that are related to soil governance, and a National program for conservation, sustainable use and restoration of soils is in place. Yet, implementation is rather focused on EU regulations and is believed to insufficiently provide soil protection. This highlights an institutional void between formal rules and farmers’ implementation, with low integration among formal institutions and some coordination occurring thanks to the advisory board, that follows implementation of conservation, sustainable use and restoration of soils. The business model is highly concerned with the supply chain, in fact a number of informal institutions, i.e. producers and processors cooperatives, are to be found. Their role might prove pivotal in deciding to prioritize and support farmers’ action towards soil health conservation, if not, main responsibility lies in the advisory board’s capacity. Stronger involvement and prioritization of soil health from regional authorities and supply chain actors, as well as building and supporting a tailored advisory service, together with consumers’ and citizens awareness could contribute in balancing the overall institutional framework. ▪ LATVIA The case studies set in Latvia show a quite strong presence of formal institutions partly concerned with soils but poorly coordinating across ministries. Furthermore, a number of regulations on the topic exist, worth noticing are the National Legislation Ban of Soil Ploughing in Certain Areas, targeting farmers with arable land or permanent grasslands to reduce GHG emissions and maintain soil organic matter, imposing sanctions that reduce direct payments for non-compliance; and the national Legislation Increasing Property Tax for Degraded Farmland, targeting landowners to reduce degraded land, imposing doubled property taxes for non-compliance, and directly supports soil health. Yet the existing legislations don’t seem to be sufficiently effective to ensure soil health, and they do not always appeal to farmers and land users' needs, as shown by the lack of targeted incentives for agroforestry. This highlights an institutional void: on the one hand stakeholders are asked to do regular soil testing, on the other missing mechanisms to respond to their needs result for now in a low uptake of agroforestry. Targeted incentives from CAP have allowed some practices to be adopted, e.g. reduced tillage, but this relies rather on individuals capacity than on the support of public offices, showing a further structural hole occurring between formal and informal levels. The digital mapping initiative, together with tailored advice in soil management techniques and bureaucratic 36 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 support, might act as boundary initiative to help bridge this gap and improve farmers’ livelihood ▪ NETHERLANDS The Netherlands demonstrates a complex interplay of formal and informal institutions and regulations. A study by Kik et al., (2021) identifies all relevant actors, analyses their objectives, and determines their power dynamics. During NOVASOIL’s interviews, informal rules were described as highly heterogeneous. For example, some pro-environmental farmers prioritize soil health in their farm management decisions, while others focus on profit maximization, making it more challenging to motivate them to adopt soil health measures. Formal rules are often shaped by EU regulations. The Dutch case study focuses on the business model of carbon credit trading, which remunerates soil health measures if they lead to quantifiable, longterm carbon sequestration. Trials of this business model are currently being organized by rural banking institutions and farmers' associations, highlighting the prominent role of the private sector in the case study. Within the theoretical framework, the private sector serves a mediating role and is categorized as a non-constitutional actor. This role may or may not ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are adequately represented. Specifically, private actors might prioritize their objectives (e.g., profit maximization) while considering public interests, such as ecosystem services like biodiversity, only to a limited extent. Regarding the broader context of carbon credit trading, farmers' associations and certification bodies, alongside rural financial institutions, are considered boundary organizations. These actors enhance the legitimacy of claimed CO₂ reductions and improve the business model's functionality. Similarly, research institutions and soil sensing providers play a critical mediating role. These actors help address structural holes—gaps in the network of actors involved. In the early trials of carbon credit trading, a structural hole was evident. These trials arose due to increasing interest from private buyers (e.g., those pursuing climate neutrality) and individual farmers, despite significant uncertainties. These included unclear legislative frameworks and questions about the longterm carbon storage potential of soils. Early trials mistakenly assumed that measures complying with existing formal requirements, such as GAEC (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions) and other CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) obligations, could qualify for carbon credits. However, draft regulation 2018/841 clarified that carbon credits can only be generated through measures exceeding standard farm management and regulatory requirements. This misalignment between early trials and the stricter legislative framework highlighted inefficiencies stemming from the structural hole. Improved communication and coordination could have better utilized resources. To address these challenges, rural banking institutions and other boundary organizations now 37 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 advise on measures that meet regulation 2018/841 requirements, aligning with the more ambitious framework. Certification bodies ensure the reliability of carbon credits, potentially boosting demand. Additionally, advancements in sensor technologies could lower certification costs (e.g., for soil sampling) and further increase the reliability of quantified carbon sequestration. Interviews and the above example highlight weak past interactions between the formal constitutional level and the informal level. In contrast, better coordination is evident in institutions like independent regional water boards. These boards manage water levels and quality, with most members elected by citizens, while certain seats are reserved for specific stakeholders (e.g., farmers, environmental organizations, and industry representatives). Water boards facilitate resource flows, information sharing, and actor representation. However, past overrepresentation of farmers and other groups compared to their societal share posed challenges, such as the risk of institutional voids. Institutional voids—characterized by inadequate institutional frameworks— can limit certain actors' access to resources. Recent adjustments to water board compositions aim to improve societal representation and address these risks. Ensuring balanced representation is crucial, as actors may differ in their environmental quality priorities. In conclusion, fostering a shared understanding of new business models (e.g., carbon farming), their benefits, and the ways to reliably meet legislative requirements can support the development of early trials that align with enforced regulations. This approach is necessary to maintain farmers' motivation and prevent frustration when early efforts fail to meet regulatory standards. ▪ GERMANY The case studies are mainly set in Germany – CO2 land (DE) and Soil Fertility Fund (DE, AT, CH) – and both concern organic matter build-up and carbon sequestration to generate carbon credit certificates. Even if soil health is among governmental interests, the private sector is for now playing a prominent role. Besides the formal institutions showing medium interest in soil health, at least in terms of agricultural policies and EU guidelines uptake, there is a degree of governmental commitment in the form of funding research projects and supporting initiatives such as the HumusClimateNet whose objective is to demonstrate soil health practices and connect farmers. Yet, low interaction and knowledge flows, with the exclusion of federal agricultural offices, is directed towards farmers. This latent institutional void could worsen if governmental priorities should change in disfavour of soils, or if application of the Carbon Removal Certification Framework should prove too rigid for farmers uptake. To ensure an enabling institutional environment for upcoming regulations on soil monitoring and carbon sequestration, regional and national authorities might need to update state agencies and offices to enable and support farmers in change of practices. Moreover, the reliance on private funding and donations for carbon sequestration rewards poses a risk of discontinuous or unreliable resource flows and increasing 38 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 bargaining power from financial institutions. This evidences a structural hole between farmers, agricultural extensions and advisory services, and calls for improved function of boundary organizations, and possibly research institutions, to increase networking and ensure that soil health principles are respected in an encompassing way, that goes beyond carbon sequestration and guarantees farming livelihood. ▪ OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS The analysis of the case studies across Italy, Spain, Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, and the Netherlands collectively reveal widespread institutional gaps, a lack of political priority, and poor coordination between formal and informal institutions as the primary barriers to effective soil health management. Successful models emphasize the role of boundary organizations to bridge gaps, the importance of incentive programs to motivate farmers, and the need for stronger advisory services to ensure that soil health practices are accessible and sustainable. Additionally, the urban-rural divide and land-use conflicts further complicate soil protection efforts, underscoring the need for integrated policy frameworks that prioritize soil health across all sectors. 39 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 5 Pathways towards sustainable business models for soil health Socio-technical roadmaps are a method useful to work with complex problems, like soil degradation, that entail long-term goals, like restoring soil health by 2050, and a high degree of uncertainty throughout the process. They may help generate future innovation pathways based on chains of change and identify opportunities and risks in the market, technologies and social environments. The roadmaps (figure 5) entail three levels: A. The trends and drivers are macro-level and often cannot be controlled but are highly influenced and determined by the context. B. The changes are at the meso-level and comprise technical, infrastructural, juridical and social changes. C. The resources/activities are between the mesoand micro-level and are those actions that can be pursued by the stakeholders to reach the objective Figure 5. Pathways for restoring soil health by 2050 Hereafter, we summarise the main outcomes of what actors across different case studies individuated to be possible pathways and dynamics towards increased soil health BM. As economic drivers and constraints were mostly mentioned across all case studies, we’ll start by outlining them. Concerning current incentive structures, it was found that subsidies and funding frameworks in the pursuit of soil health do not align with farmers' real needs, often incentivising compliance rather than sustainable practices that are locally adapted and relevant. Furthermore, farmers need guarantees of attractive long-term payments for sustainable practices, as current payments 40 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 are often viewed as too low to justify the effort. Finally, complex funding application processes can deter farmers from seeking financial support for sustainable transitions, necessitating a simplification of bureaucratic procedures. Solutions proposed to improve incentive mechanisms for soil health include creating broader, systemic incentives considering multiple environmental policies in agriculture and promoting integrated approaches to sustainable land management. Enhance payments from both agri-environmental schemes and subsidies for practices (e.g. crop rotation, reduced tillage and cover cropping) that specifically aim to improve soil health and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) (e.g., biodiversity and carbon sequestration). To increase attractiveness, ensure long-term contracts, which are key for the case of agroforestry; ensure fair remuneration for various ecosystem services; and allow for the stacking of different incentive programs. Introduce financial guarantees to protect farmers from economic risks associated with transitioning to sustainable practices and research funding for long-term trials. This might, for instance, motivate the adoption of carbon sequestration techniques, as current payments are often viewed as too low to motivate significant changes in practices. Sources of finance include municipal or state authorities, as the centrality of CAP subsidies continues to prove, but it shall also further include the private sector and community funds that might finance soil-friendly practices, as the “soil fertility fund” shows. These findings underscore the necessity for a diverse and integrated set of financial incentives to promote soil health in various agricultural and urban contexts effectively. While discussion on incentives has opened a broad range of solutions, when it comes to regulatory frameworks, contradictory feelings emerged when considering additional regulations. Overall advocated was a stable legal framework with less frequent changes while allowing flexibility in regulations to support farmers in developing sustainable practices. The most discussed case study was one of carbon credits, calling to support research and development of scalable business models for carbon sequestration - and considering the long-term nature of carbon sequestration assessments – while establishing a clear EU-wide framework for certification with transparent and uniform standards for measuring changes in soil carbon content across initiatives to ensure consistency and reliability. Further soilfriendly regulations were found to be possible through mandatory practices of catch and cover crops and reduced tillage and agro-forestry; nevertheless, several case studies addressed the potential conflicts between those practices and EU goals for reducing plant protection products. Last but not least, incorporating green areas, urban and rural, in city development plans and limiting soil sealing were reported as still lacking regulatory instruments, possibly enhancing biodiversity and providing social and educational benefits. Introducing a mix of support measures tailored to stimulate sustainable agriculture and foster collaboration among institutions could enhance the overall effectiveness of initiatives to improve soil health. In that sense, the role 41 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 of institutions should contribute in: a). secure additional funding and support to help farmers mitigate risks associated with transitioning to more sustainable practices; b). implementing region-specific incentives that consider the unique characteristics and environmental needs of the different regions, c). develop a strong advisory system focused on soil health, providing farmers with guidance and support in bureaucratic processes, d). collaborate with research and digital platform developers to ensure tailored and ongoing monitoring of results and accurate representation of on-ground practices in agricultural data. Establishing soil health as a priority, that is, enhancing policies that foster sustainable practices and protecting agricultural land from being converted to non-agricultural uses, e.g. urbanisation or energy production, was also frequently mentioned. Coming to products related to soil health SBM, there was a great focus on (new) certification and labelling schemes to distinguish soil healthenhancing products, from carbon farming to soil-district labels aiming at tailoring agricultural practices to local soil needs, as in the case of the sandy soils of the Po Delta. Although certification may be viewed as a burden, it serves as a critical tool for ensuring compliance with sustainability and quality standards in production processes. The case of carbon farming best exemplifies this, as positive measures can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while providing additional income to farmers. To ensure that consumers can identify and support sustainable options, thus addressing the market need of greater demand, foster awareness supported by information campaigns to educate consumers on agricultural practices and product quality is still a niece to expand in most cases but could contribute to advocating for fair pricing that reflects the actual input costs of products. On the supply side, encouraging the formation of supply chain contracts that involve all actors, e.g. retailers and certification companies, ensures sustainable practices through labelling adherence to environmental standards, which could help distribute the burden of certification not only on farmers. Concerning the need for technological support and advancement, three main directions were found: - Establish monitoring systems to verify adherence to sustainable practices should be accompanied by monitoring techniques that are costeffective in tracking changes in soil health indicators, soil carbon content being the most mentioned one. To ensure complete and transparent information on carbon removal processes and the credibility of carbon sequestration claims, including consistent measurement protocols. Invest in new measurement technologies such as remote sensing, can improve accuracy and reduce sampling expenses. - Promote precision farming techniques that enhance agricultural efficiency through data-driven decision-making. For example, moisture and nutrient sensor technologies and innovative equipment, such as drones for 42 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 targeted applications, were presented as hopeful solutions in the intensive olive sector and vineyards. - Digital platforms and maps to exchange knowledge and information on soil health and best practices, fostering actors’ engagement both in urban areas, as for the case of community gardens, and rural areas, as for the digital showcase. While technological solutions constitute starting points, research and development also showed different directions, seeking, on the one hand, investment in new soil health technologies, conservation agriculture techniques and access to analytical tools (maps and data) combined with enhanced and specialised training for technical advisors in soil management. On the other, foster partnerships between researchers, farmers, and community members to guarantee long-term studies, establish networks for sharing best practices, enhance knowledge application and promote sustainable practices and implement programs to raise public awareness about soil health. This result is quite in line with the underlined social drivers, where the overarching theme was to encourage a shift in social habits and perceptions around sustainability, promoting the idea that healthy soils can lead to higher profitability through reduced input costs. To do that, it is key to increase social awareness of the ecosystem services provided by healthy soils, emphasising their importance for long-term agricultural viability and local livelihood. Ultimately, this requires balancing the economic benefits possibly derived from SBM for healthy soil with community needs, ensuring that local economic interests align with sustainable practices. Increasing actor involvement and coordination is crucial to accompany transition pathways. In this regard, farmers remain central actors, so to ensure that farmers' realities and needs are considered in decision-making processes, addressing doubts and scepticism, and include them in discussions about regulations and sustainability efforts, bridging the gap between government, NGOs, and the agricultural community, remains pivotal. As shown by the recent case of the Farm to Fork strategy, or the future scenario of an EU certification scheme for carbon credits, fostering better cooperation and reducing bureaucratic burdens might raise farmers’ willingness to adopt certain practices, and establishing a robust agricultural advisory system focused on soil health to provide guidance and resources might prove conducive. Furthermore, coordination mechanisms were suggested for contracts, partnerships, and supply chains. Facilitate formal contracts and partnerships between stakeholders (e.g., farmers, state agencies, research institutions, and technology providers) to drive innovation in sustainable practices and products, ensuring the effective integration of agricultural data and practices, promoting adherence to sustainable methods and possibly strengthening collaboration and sharing best practices. This includes the case of carbon credit generation, local supply chains and the adoption of sustainable practices. Support short supply chains that connect producers 49 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Doran, J.W., 2002. Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 88, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00246-8 Kik, M.C., Claassen, G.D.H., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Smit, A.B., Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 107, 105491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105491 Kiser, L., Ostrom, E., 1982. The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches in strategies of political inquiry. Strategies of political inquiry 172–222. Lehmann, J., Bossio, D.A., Kögel-Knabner, I., Rillig, M.C., 2020. The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8 Ménard, C., 2017. Meso-institutions: The variety of regulatory arrangements in the water sector. Utilities Policy 49, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.05.001 OECD, 2016. Better Policies for Sustainable Development 2016: A New Framework for Policy Coherence. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256996-en Panagos, P., Montanarella, L., Barbero, M., Schneegans, A., Aguglia, L., Jones, A., 2022. Soil priorities in the European Union. Geoderma Regional 29, e00510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2022.e00510 Pascual, U., Adams, W.M., Díaz, S., Lele, S., Mace, G.M., Turnhout, E., 2021. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat Sustain 4, 567–572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7 Pascual, U., Termansen, M., Hedlund, K., Brussaard, L., Faber, J.H., Foudi, S., Lemanceau, P., Jørgensen, S.L., 2015. On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 15, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.06.002 Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., Bartolini, F., Furlan, A., 2015. The role of policy priorities and targeting in the spatial location of participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Land Use Policy 47, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.005 Rahman, H.M.T., Ville, A.S.S., Song, A.M., Po, J.Y.T., Berthet, E., Brammer, J.R., Brunet, N.D., Jayaprakash, L.G., Lowitt, K.N., Rastogi, A., Reed, G., Hickey, G.M., 2017. A framework for analyzing institutional gaps in natural resource governance. International Journal of the Commons 11, 823– 853. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.758 Vatn, A., 2018. Environmental Governance – From Public to Private? Ecological Economics 148, 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.010 Williamson, O.E., 2000. The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature 38, 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.3.595 Winkler, G., Pagano, L., Vergamini, D., Bartolini, F., 2025. Soils and ecosystem services: policy narratives and instruments for soil health in the EU. BAE. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15466 50 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 8 Appendix I - Case studies’ incentives 1. CiRAA Long term experiments – UNIPI Incentives that relate to the experiments conduted and that could be adoptes by farmers are based on the CAP, namely: - Organic Farming Practices, promotes adoption or maintenance of organic farming to mitigate climate change, enhance biodiversity, and improve ecosystem services. It aims to reduce chemical dependency and produce sustainable food while improving animal welfare. - SRA29 Reduced Tillage Techniques, encourages farmers to adopt reduced tillage methods to mitigate climate change and promote efficient natural resource management. - SRA03-ACA3 Cover Crops, promotes the use of cover crops to mitigate climate change and enhance resource management, including soil and water. It aims to improve carbon sequestration while reducing chemical use. Noncompliance results in the loss of financial contributions, directly benefiting soil health. 2. SPAIN - Olive groves - ASAJA Key instruments for integrated production up to know only rely on CAP ecoschemes, specifically: Eco-scheme: P6. Practice of spontaneous or planted vegetation covers Eco-scheme: P7. Practice of inert covers of pruning remains in woody crops Those encourage farmers to implement spontaneous or planted vegetation covers and inert covers of pruning remains, aiming to enhance economic, environmental, and social sustainability but impose strict compliance requirements; failure to adhere to the guidelines results in the loss of financial contributions, directly impacting soil health and overall agricultural sustainability. 3. ESTONIA – Sustainable seed production - ETKI Incentives important to the BM are based on CAP, namely: • Basic income support payment • “Environment friendly production eco plan”: crop rotation and cultivation of leguminous crops; use of certified seed (15% cereal seed); glyphosate restriction; winter vegetation (30% of eligible land); soil samples and fertilization plan; grass strips (flowering strips) and promoting pollinators; education; additional water protection (50% 51 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 winter vegetation); promoting field birds (not mowing permanent grassland) • Support for land melioration, to develop and maintain agricultural and forestry infrastructure. A strong agricultural advisory system needs to be built up, which also attaches importance to soil health. 4. BULGARIA Vineyards – NBU Main incentives for the BM rely on the CAP strategic plan 2023 – 2027, namely: Intervention for encouraging cooperation for short supply chains Investments in the viticulture sector Eco-scheme for perennial crops Eco-scheme for developing ecological infrastructure Implementation of cooperation activities that aim at strengthening of regional potential and local product 5. LATVIA Digital mapping and Agroforestry – ZSA Both case studies are set in Latvia and currently, there are several incentives interesting to the BM, relying on both CAP, supply chain and private initiatives. CAP Eco scheme “Reduced Soil Tillage Practices” This instrument targets arable farmers to reduce GHG emissions and enhance soil health through non-ploughing practices, with non-compliance leading to loss of hectare-based support. CAP Knowledge Transfer Support under CAP Network Advisory Services Aimed at all farmers, this advisory service facilitates education on soil-friendly practices without sanctions for non-use, indirectly promoting soil health through knowledge transfer. CRCF Carbon Removal Framework This framework targets any entity willing to certify carbon credits, indirectly supporting EU carbon sinking objectives while risking exclusion from markets for non-compliance with certification standards. Investment in Cooperative and R&D Grants Targeting cooperatives and research institutions, this funding is based on result obligations, with potential payback sanctions, and may enhance soil health if research focuses on this area. Product and Practice Branding Campaigns This initiative targets producers and NGOs to promote branding without directly implementing EU objectives, with non-compliance resulting in lost co-financing, potentially benefiting soil health through related campaigns. 6. Perennial aromatic plants UNIPI 52 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Existing incentive to the BM is Eco Scheme 5 - Specific Measures for Pollinators. This scheme targets farmers to enhance biodiversity and food security by promoting pollinator-friendly land management. It aims to prevent biodiversity loss, improve ecosystem services, and ensure sustainable food production. Further incentives might be: - Soil Health Certification Standards, targeting farmers, this instrument focuses on improving soil health and efficient natural resource management while reducing chemical dependency. It promotes the biological quality of soil and aligns with various EU objectives. Financial contributions are forfeited for non-compliance, directly impacting soil health. - European Charter for Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Tourism Fund, this initiative involves farmers, locals, and the public to promote sustainable development and resource management while protecting biodiversity and landscapes. 7. SPAIN - Tamarguillo park - EVENOR Main economic incentives useful to the business model are: − Local subsidies to incentivize the creation and maintenance of sustainable urban gardens and the use of practices that improve soil health. − Payments for ecosystem services (PES), rewarding garden managers who adopt sustainable practices that contribute to biodiversity, water retention, and carbon capture. 8. ITALY - Sandy soils - IDECO AEC Measures provide subsidies to farmers meeting voluntary standards that enhance soil health through practices like soil coverage and crop rotation. The medium-term application of these measures significantly improves soil organic carbon, water retention, and biodiversity. - Carbon credits incentivize sustainable soil management by allowing farmers to earn and sell credits for carbon sequestration, though uncertainty around regulations and market prices limits their uptake. Farmers view these credits as a supplementary benefit to existing CAP payments, with a preference for hybrid models that balance action and results. - Sustainability Districts unite various stakeholders to address common soil threats and develop collaborative solutions, potentially enhancing income through recognizable sustainability labels. 9. Rabo Carbon Bank - WUR Main instruments to support development of such BM are carbon credits, yet they tightly relate to other incentives. 53 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Carbon Credit Trade: certification process is still under discussion. Might be effective to promote more sustainable farm practices as it allows financial renumeration but there seems to be a need for further research (whether soil health practices can lead to long-term carbon sequestration). Payments over the CAP (Agri-environmental schemes for more advanced environmental goals and Eco-schemes for less ambitious environmental goals). Received by all farmers that comply with the enhanced conditionality. Doubts to additional measures’ compliance to generate carbon credits. Investment support might promote the adoption of carbon farming practices such as conservation tillage, but do not target soil health. Additional incentives might be: labelling programs (to generate additional payments for farmers on top of income from the sales of carbon credits); research and development grants (to improve C certification processes); training and qualification (soil health promoting farming) 10. GERMANY Soil fertility fonds and CO2 lands - TUM Both BM are placed in Germany, those rely on the same three key instruments: - Minimum Soil Coverage Standards (GAEC): This measure requires farmers to maintain soil coverage during sensitive periods to reduce erosion and enhance soil health. Compliance with these standards is essential for receiving direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with penalties for non-compliance. - DÜV - Fertiliser Ordinance: This regulation governs the application of fertilizers and soil additives to protect soil health and reduce nitrate leaching into groundwater. It sets strict nitrogen application limits (max 170 kg N/ha) and imposes significant fines for violations, emphasizing sustainable nutrient management. - Impact Funds: These funds support initiatives aimed at improving soil health by providing financial assistance for sustainable practices and facilitating knowledge transfer among farmers. They aim to promote both direct and indirect benefits for soil health through education and resource allocation 54 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 9 Appendix II - Institutions involved ITALY CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS FORMAL INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Agriculture, Food sovereignty and Forestry MASAF; Ministry of Environment and Energy Transition MASE CS1: Regional DG Agriculture and DG Environment, River basin consortium (weak), Regional park CS2: Agrobusiness industry (Flora srl) CS3: Regional authorities of Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna (strong) Local administrations (weak) [General urban plan] Public administration (Comunità della Pratica Agricoltura di Precisione) Research centers: ISPRA, CREA, IRPET ARPA [environmental monitoring] Hydrogeological risk protection agency Operational innovation groups (GOI) Farmers Association training bureau CS1: Regional educational extensions CS3: CiRAA, technical advisors, organic certifiers INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS Farmers’ trade associations Environmental organizations CS2: designation of origin groups (PDO, PGI, TSG), bio-districts CS3: The Garfagnana food and agrobiodiversity community FARMERS Farm contractors CS1: (few) civil society and tourists CS2: (agri)tourists, local citizens, agricultural entrepreneurs CS1: District of the sands in the Po Delta CS2: Aromatic perennials CS3: Long term-experiment 55 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 ESTONIA CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS FORMAL INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture Ministry of Climate Agricultural Registers and Information Board Agriculture and Food Board [Water Act, Plant protection act, CAP, environmentally sound mgmt eco-plan] Extension services Educational and research centers Estonian Soil Science Society, Plant Protection Society Seed center (state owned enterprise) SoilHUB INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS Organic farming organizations Estonian nature conservation fund (NGO) Initiatives: Northern Roots,NGO Estonian Permaculture Association, Organic Club FARMERS [environmentally sound mgmt ecoplan: soil analysis/5 years by beneficiaries of] LATVIA CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS FORMAL INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Climate Ministry of Environment National agencies with regional branches [CAP (nitrogen reduction, soil cover), tax for abandoned or degraded land.] Advisory services Universities and Private research institutes INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS NGOs for environmental protection Agricultural cooperatives FARMERS Landowners Forestry sector CS1: digital map CS2: agroforestry 56 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 NETHERLANDS CONSTITUTIONAL ACTORS & ACTIONS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTORS & ACTIONS FORMAL INSTITUTIONS ACTORS European Union, Regional and local governments (Ministry of climate, Ministry of agriculture, nature and food quality, Ministry of finances, Provinces, Waterboards) EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS: Development and enforcement of Dutch legislation such as the Dutch Fertilizer Ordinance, and others. These enforce CAP policies and strategies ACTORS Advisors and certification bodies Knowledge institutions Financial institutions suppliers (technology, feed, input), crop insurance providers, real estate and land agents NGOs soil sensing providers. ACTIONS Provision of learning materials on soil quality, demonstrations on the topic etc. INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS ACTORS Farmers’ organisations (Farmers’ collectives, Farmers’ associations) Agricultural communities ACTIONS Farmer collective organize the nature protection activities within the Netherlands, some of them focus on soil quality. ACTORS FARMERS: dairy and arable; intensive livestock without farmland, other (nonagricultural) landowners, water users and nature managers, agricultural purchasers, distributers and retailers, contractors, rural banking institutes (financial institutions), residents ACTIONS Farm managers and other land users have a heterogenous opinion on how to farm best (informal rules are heterogenous) 57 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Rural banking institutes set up early trials for carbon credit trade GERMANY CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS FORMAL INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of the Environment Federal agricultural offices [CAP – AEM, Federal soil protection act] State research center for agriculture Soil and biodiversity advisory Climate humus network Private initiatives, foundations, NGOs INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS Associations’ projects (IG Healthy Soil, Down-to-Earth Project, and Bioland Foundation) Organic farming association FARMERS CS1: citizens, (researchers) CS2: private donors CS1: CO2 land (DE) CS2: Soil Fertility Fund (DE, AT, CH) BULGARIA CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS FORMAL INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Ministry of Environment and Water Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works Regional offices Municipalities [National program for conservation, sustainable use and restoration of soils] Advisory board Universities Advisory services and consultants INFORMAL Wine growing cooperative FARMERS 58 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 INSTITUTIONS Association of wine growers Agricultural Credit Cooperative "Solidarnost” Local actors SPAIN CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS FORMAL INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, and Sustainable Development Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge State Agency for Air Safety Autonomous communities (regional) CS1: Urban planning department [CAP, “Green urban”] Universities Research centers CS1: parks and gardens services CS2: (few) advisory services CS3: organic farming consultants INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS CS1: Neighborhood association, social gardens, NGOs [round tables] CS2: farmers’ organizations, olive growers’ cooperatives CS3: Riscal winery CS1: CITIZENS CS2 and CS3: FARMERS CS1: Tamarguillo Park CS2: Olives’ integrated production CS3: La Rueda organic vineyards