Baseline conceptual framework

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 Baseline conceptual framework Project NOVASOIL Project title INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Work Package WP1. Development of end-users-led soil health business cases framework Deliverable 1.1 Period covered 6 months Publication date 28/04/2023 Dissemination level PU Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this report EVENOR Authors Blanco-Velázquez Francisco José, Gonzalez-Peñaloza Félix, Bravo-García Javier, Alonso-Martín F AnayaRomero María Contributors All partners Ref. Ares(2024)8048687 - 13/11/2024 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 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 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES This document has been shared to the consortium in order to ensure their quality and to include a multidisciplinary point of view. Following a description of the different reviews can be found TABLE REVISION HISTORY DELIVERABLE Row Version Date Reviewers Description 1 V1.0 1/03/2023 EVENOR Draft version provided 2 V1.1 21/03/2023 euprojects@arefl h Format correction 3 V1.2 30/03/2023 Kalvi Tamm Inputs 4 V1.3 01/04/2023 Tiina Köster Inputs 5 V2.0 13/04/2023 EVENOR Second draft version provided 6 V2.1 25/04/2023 PARTNERS Comments and inputs received 7 V2.2 28/04/2023 EVENOR Final version 8 V3.0 09/09/2024 EVENOR Improvements added 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 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 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 Table of contents 1 Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 8 2 Objectives of the document .................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Why develop a single comprehensive baseline report ............................... 10 2.3 Outline ........................................................................................................................................ 10 3 Project objectives and approach ........................................................................................ 10 3.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Concept and approach of the framework ............................................................. 11 3.3 Expected contents of the final framework ........................................................... 11 3.4 Scope and definitions ........................................................................................................ 12 ▪ 2.4.1 Case study ...................................................................................................................... 12 ▪ 2.4.2 Business model .......................................................................................................... 12 ▪ 2.4.3 Soil health ...................................................................................................................... 13 ▪ 2.4.4 Technologies ............................................................................................................... 13 ▪ 2.4.5 Incentives ....................................................................................................................... 13 4 Framework components and interactions .................................................................. 14 4.1 Context features .................................................................................................................. 14 4.1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.2 State of the soil health and ecosystem ........................................................ 14 4.1.3 Business sites related soil health ...................................................................... 17 4.1.4 Technologies .................................................................................................................. 17 4.1.5 Monitoring technologies ....................................................................................... 18 4.1.6 Remote sensing ............................................................................................................ 2 4.1.7 Sentinel data ................................................................................................................... 2 4.1.8 Drones and UAVs ......................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Monitoring of business models’ impacts .............................................................. 4 4.2.1 Monitoring Soil Health: key variables .............................................................. 4 4.3 Policy conditions .................................................................................................................... 2 4.4 Legal conditions ..................................................................................................................... 3 4.5 Market situation ..................................................................................................................... 5 4.5.1 Market economic tools ............................................................................................. 6 4.5.2 Other actors ..................................................................................................................... 8 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 4.6 Business features .................................................................................................................. 8 4.6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 4.6.2 Feature used to identify business types in the project ........................ 9 4.6.3 Other relevant features ............................................................................................ 9 4.7 Mechanisms/processes ................................................................................................... 10 4.7.1 Conceptual and disciplinary references ...................................................... 10 4.7.2 Costs/Benefits................................................................................................................. 11 4.7.3 Acceptability.................................................................................................................... 11 4.7.4 Preferences ...................................................................................................................... 11 4.8 Performance/evaluation ................................................................................................. 12 4.9 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 12 4.10 List of potential performance indicators ............................................................... 13 5 Methods and stakeholder engagement ......................................................................... 15 6 Case studies management .................................................................................................... 16 6.1 Soil indicators selected ........................................................................................................... 16 6.2 Impact evaluation of practices ........................................................................................ 20 6.3 Technologies for soil health business models ........................................................... 2 6.4 Incentives in the case studies ............................................................................................. 2 7 Discussion, conclusions, and the next steps ................................................................. 3 8 Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ 5 7 References ............................................................................................................................................... 5 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 1 Executive summary The European NOVASOIL project seeks to create a conceptual framework for sustainable business models centred around soil health. This document serves as a foundation for understanding soil health within the context of environmental sustainability, supporting the project's goal of promoting investment in soil health through innovative business solutions. This summary outlines key definitions, approaches, and variables essential for stakeholders interested in developing soil-health-based business models. The primary objective of the NOVASOIL project is to highlight the societal and environmental benefits of investing in soil health. The project will develop a "toolbox" to analyse various business models that promote soil health, particularly across different land uses, climatic conditions, and sectors such as agriculture and agroforestry. This toolbox will include categorization models based on best practices, sustainable management, and EU policies, with a focus on profitability and environmental effectiveness. The project also aims to develop frameworks and methodologies that stakeholders, such as farmers, researchers, and policymakers, can apply to assess the financial viability and ecological benefits of soil health investments. By integrating a wide range of stakeholders into its research, the project seeks to establish a community of practice to drive interest and knowledge about soil health investments. NOVASOIL identifies four primary business models to enhance soil health: - Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): These models focus on monetizing ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, water provision, and flood control. - Value Chain Models: These contracts compensate farmers for sustainable products, linking public goods like clean water or reduced emissions to private products. - Carbon Credits: This model involves trading carbon credits, contributing to climate change mitigation. - Collective Implementation: This involves farmer cooperatives and collective actors working together to promote sustainable practices. These models are flexible and often used in combination, allowing for tailored solutions across different regions and contexts. The concept of soil health is defined through physical, chemical, and biological indicators that affect ecosystem services, such as food production, water filtration, and carbon sequestration. Key soil health indicators include soil organic carbon, soil texture, bulk density, pH levels, and biodiversity metrics such as microbial biomass and earthworm diversity. The NOVASOIL project emphasizes the need for robust monitoring systems to ensure soil health improvements are tracked effectively over time. Involving stakeholders in business model design is crucial for the success of soil health initiatives. The NOVASOIL project employs a participatory 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 approach, integrating the perspectives of farmers, policymakers, and investors to develop business models that align with stakeholder needs. The project also highlights the role of technology in soil monitoring, advocating for in-situ monitoring, remote sensing, and data analysis tools to optimize decision-making. The framework supports the use of innovative digital tools to track business model performance, thus making it easier for policymakers and landowners to assess the long-term impacts of soil health investments. The development of a "toolbox" for stakeholders will allow them to model and predict the viability of various soil health business models across different ecosystems and regulatory environments. NOVASOIL aligns its business models with several EU policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Green Deal, and the Farm to Fork strategy. The project also anticipates the impact of future legislation, including the proposed EU Soil Health Law, which aims to restore degraded ecosystems and promote sustainable soil management practices. The regulatory framework will be crucial for the success of soil health business models, as these laws are expected to mandate the integration of soil health within broader environmental and agricultural policies. Legal considerations such as transaction costs, compliance with environmental legislation, and equity among stakeholders will be factored into the design of business models. The NOVASOIL project aims to transform the current conceptual framework into an operational tool that supports the design of business models for sustainable soil management. This framework will not only contribute to environmental sustainability but also offer new revenue streams for farmers and landowners. Through its innovative approach, which blends scientific research, stakeholder engagement, and technological integration, NOVASOIL is set to become a pivotal project in promoting soil health across Europe. For stakeholders, this document offers a detailed guide on the variables to consider when designing and implementing soil-health-based business models, emphasizing both economic feasibility and environmental sustainability. 2 Objectives of the document 2.1 Objective The purpose of this document is to establish an initial conceptual framework for the project NOVASOIL, which will serve as a foundation for interpreting the project's activities and connecting its objectives, approach, and relevant information on the topic. This first version of the framework employs a structured and extensive literature review approach to support the project's planned activities. It also aims to outline the project's scope and relevant definitions, as well as explore the preliminary logic of the initial conceptual framework. This framework will 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 be further developed and refined during WP1 activities and throughout the project's entirety. The main objective of the document is to establish the basis of the most updated knowledge about business models that take care of soil health. This document allows you to be informed about the most recent scientific literature on the topic, including classic concepts, as well as discussing issues related to certain aspects of the topic. 2.2 Why develop a single comprehensive baseline report The NOVASOIL strategy is to analyse the different benefits for society and the environment from investment in soil health. Their integration is being pursued through the development of the unified conceptual framework developed at the beginning of the project and tested/ improved through and by continuous interaction with a wide range of stakeholders in an actor-led policy support/ development process. By the end of the project, it is expected to achieve the transformation of the initial framework into an effective operational tool able to support decision-making in business model solutions to different case studies. 2.3 Outline As this document is the starting point to develop the contents of NOVASOIL, the next section will report the key objectives and approach of the project and also aim to justify the identification of the framework. Section 3 will illustrate the general framework components and interactions. Section 4 gets into details of methods and stakeholder engagement. Section 5 discusses the methods to analyse business models and situations, with support implementation, with a special emphasis on stakeholders’ participation. 3 Project objectives and approach 3.1 Objectives The general objective of the NOVASOIL project is to highlight the benefits for society and the environment from the investment in soil health. The main expected outcome of the project is a toolbox for the analysis of the suitability of different business cases that promote soil health. This toolbox will be based on a set of good examples from Europe and other countries and the needs and demands of society. The toolbox will include a categorisation of the models and business cases considering a) sustainable soil management under different land uses and climatic conditions; b) products based on practices promoting soil health; c) consumption and certification practices conductive; d) the reuse of land and e) sustainable soil management in the context of the EU Taxonomy Regulation. The NOVASOIL multi-actor and multidisciplinary team bring together 16 partners in 10 countries, covering representative typologies of actors involved in soil health and business models (farmer organisation, research institutions, consultancy companies, etc). Specific objectives are: 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 4.1.3 Business sites related soil health Thee main areas have been identified regarding soil health business: ● Agriculture is the main sector where new business models could be implemented. Also, agriculture is the sector which has the most developed markets and policies, and the variety of market opportunities is very wide. ● Agroforestry is an important growing sector to develop in the soil health framework. Time and types of production are different from agriculture, this includes how we treat the soil and generate ecosystem services and, consequently, soil health improvement. ● Urban, semi-urban and green zones are a sector with poor information about business models but can be developed. There is literature explaining that we can obtain numerous benefits through good management of these zones, improving the cultural ecosystem services but also soil health. 4.1.4 Technologies The term "technology" pertains to the vast array of tools and systems utilised to execute a business. The collection of available technologies dictates the potential for production, costs and profitability of various business models, and possibilities for soil monitoring and management practices. This also includes the implementation of information technology that is suitable for minimising input usage, managing transactions, and monitoring outcomes and the environment. From the point of view of NOVASOIL, technology is relevant under three main aspects: ● The set of technologies to increase knowledge and demonstrate the benefits of investing in soil health, assist in decision-making and creating targeted policies. ● Potential technologies for monitoring, evaluation and viability of soil health and the ecosystem services are provided. There are many forms of soil monitoring, but the main problem they face is the high sampling and analysis capacity needed to be fully effective. In addition to this, sampling and analysis is carried out on different land uses and soil types, thus adding complexity. Easier is to evaluate a soil if the potential threats are known. For the monitoring are three main possibilities: in situ monitoring, sampling and monitoring by earth observation techniques. ● Information technologies that help to implement and adapt new business models to the user, analysing the existing business models around the world and offering the best option. The NOVASOIL project has the third point as the most important, since it bases the principal objective in developing an operational soil health business cases framework supporting the analysis of existing business cases that promote soil health and the design of more effective ones. This is accompanied by the first and second points, improving solutions to facilitate policy-making , stakeholder interplay and incentive soil health investment. 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 The combination of all of these points can also bring completely new ways in producing and implementing innovative solutions in business models and soil health, also, improving existing soil management practices and ecosystem services provided. In this way, all information obtained from the use of this technology's applications will be implemented in a toolbox. 4.1.5 Monitoring technologies Soil health is a critical factor in agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability. The health of the soil impacts not only crop yield but also the ecosystem services that support the broader natural environment. Soil degradation can result from various factors, including chemical contamination, overuse, and erosion. As such, monitoring soil health is vital in maintaining sustainable agricultural practices and mitigating environmental damage. Compliance technologies have emerged as a useful tool in monitoring soils. These technologies are designed to assess the impact of agricultural practices on the soil and provide recommendations for sustainable land use. By using these technologies, farmers can track the effectiveness of their practices in improving soil health and take corrective measures if necessary. One example of a compliance technology is precision agriculture, which uses GPS mapping and remote sensing technologies to assess soil quality and recommend appropriate fertilisation and irrigation practices. This technology provides land managers with real-time data on soil health, which they can use to make informed decisions on land use and crop management. In addition to compliance technologies, remote sensing technologies such as satellite imaging can be used to monitor soil health (Table 1). These technologies can provide a comprehensive view of soil health over a large area and identify potential issues that may require further investigation. The current state of the art of technologies related to Earth observation techniques allows predictions very close to reality. One of the objectives to be achieved is the measurement of soil data and soil condition without the need for on-site sampling. 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 Soil data targeted Methods Input Output Soil moisture estimation SVM, ANN Spaceborne remote sensing data Estimated soil moisture SVM, ANN Air temperature, relative humidity, average solar radiation DBN, MLP Evapotranspiration, leaf area index, meteorological information, land surface temperature Drougth prediction SVR, grougtht index Area index, intensity index, ridge position index, western ridge point index, nothern boundary position index Standarized precipitation evapotranspiration index DT, RF Automatic synoptic observation system data, drought indicator, remote sensing data Drought accuracy Water depth LSTM Irrigation volume, rainfall volume, evaporation volume, temperature Water table depth Soil organic carbon MARS, ANN, SVM, PLSR, RF Spectral measurements, total carbon, total nitrogen, pH Soil organic carbon Soil mapping workflow k-NN, SVM, RF Soil texture, horizon,depth,mottle depth, soil moisture,landform Soil mapping covariates 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 Soil erosion and remediation DT geological formation, soil type, annual precipitation, elevation, inclination, vegetation Soil erosion prediction RF topographic wetness index, stream power index, transport capacity index, slope, curvature, relief elevation, land use Erosion process class Soil contaminants RF, ERF, SVM, MLP high-resolution aerial imaging of arsenic contaminated agricultural field Soil risk level MPL, ANN, M5P, LR moisture, organic carbon, total carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, available phosphorus, loss on ignition PAH bioavailability Table 1. Summary of existing technologies/models by type of soil data targeted (derived from Fan et al., 2022) 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 4.1.6 Remote sensing Remote sensing technologies have the potential to optimise the use of resources in on-farm inspections by reducing the need for on-the-spot controls and enabling more targeted deployments of inspectors and management practices . Combining imagery with other data sources could enhance the effectiveness of the control regime. For example, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is an active remote sensing system that can measure vegetation height over wide areas. By using pulsed lasers to measure distances to the earth, LIDAR can be used in conjunction with remote sensing to evaluate eligible grassland areas under the pro-rata method for permanent grassland. Additionally, when used with crop identification software, LIDAR can potentially provide a cost-effective means of meeting the greening crop diversification inspection requirements within a shorter period. However, cloud cover in these inaccessible areas can limit the reliability of this method. Figure 2 Common remote sensing technologies and products related with soil health 4.1.7 Sentinel data In addition to LIDAR and other remote sensing technologies, satellite imagery like Sentinel missions are also revolutionising the field of land monitoring. Sentinel-2, for example, offers unprecedented opportunities for global agricultural monitoring by providing 12 spectral bands and 10-20 m spatial resolution coverage with a 5-day revisit frequency. This level of detail and frequency allows for continual monitoring of soil properties and crop conditions, enabling farmers to assess land use, predict harvests, monitor seasonal changes, droughts, and other factors that can impact crop yield and soil health. By leveraging the power of satellite imagery and other remote sensing technologies, farmers and land managers can gain valuable insights 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 into their operations and make more informed decisions about how to manage their land sustainably. This can ultimately lead to improved soil health, increased crop yields, and more efficient use of resources. 4.1.8 Drones and UAVs Drones are becoming an increasingly valuable tool in land monitoring, particularly in areas where traditional on-the-spot controls are difficult due to limited physical access. These aerial vehicles can provide accurate and detailed information on soil health and crop conditions, allowing farmers and land managers to make more informed decisions about their operations. However, the use of drones is subject to legal limitations in each Member State. In some cases, landowners may need to provide permission for drone flights and operators may need to be registered. Despite these challenges, drones offer a number of benefits for land monitoring. For example, they can be used for targeted campaigns in specific areas where detailed information is needed, such as areas with suspected soil erosion or nutrient deficiencies. Additionally, drones can provide highresolution imagery that is not affected by cloud cover and other objects like trees or piles, which can be a significant issue when relying on satellite or aerial imagery. Moreover, drones can be equipped with a range of sensors, such as thermal cameras or multispectral sensors, that can provide even more detailed information about soil health and crop conditions. Drones and cameras can measure these properties indirectly, by analysing the spectral signature of the soil or plants and applying different models. These measurements can be made using various sensors such as optical, thermal, and radar sensors (Table 2). Soil properties Plant properties Soil moisture content Vegetation indices (e.g. NDVI, EVI,SAVI) Soil temperature Photosynthetic activity Soil organic matter content Canopy cover Soil texture Biomass and productivity Soil pH Plant height Soil compaction Water stress Soil salinity Leaf nitrogen content Soil nutrient content (e.g. N, P, K) Leaf area index (LAI) 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 Table 2. Common soil and plant properties measured by the use of drones and UAVs technologies. This information can be used to create detailed maps of soil properties and crop health, which can help farmers and land managers to identify areas that require targeted interventions or to monitor changes over time. Overall, while there are legal limitations to the use of drones in land monitoring, their potential to provide accurate and detailed information makes them a valuable tool for sustainable land management. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are used as an environmental remote sensing application to reduce the data gaps between in situ data collection and satellite resolution. The photogrammetric image processing enables the creation of Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) and ortho-image mosaics with very high resolution on a sub-decimetre level. It can be used to quantify gully and badland erosion in 2D and 3D, as well as for landscape development over very large areas (D’Oleire-Oltmanns et al., 2012). UAVs are considered a very good tool for the management, digitisation and analysis of high-precision agricultural systems but are still too expensive and the processing of images needs skills and time to be used by a conventional user (M.R.Barbosa-Junior et al., 2022). Collected data can be exploited for an almost continuous (in space and time) monitoring of the exploitation resources, allowing better decision making with higher precision, optimising crop yield, and making predictions about the future to prevent the spread of pests and diseases. 4.2 Monitoring of business models’ impacts NOVASOIL is focused on the identification and implementation of business models to demonstrate the benefits and co-benefits of investing in soil health that allows a substantial improvement in decision-making. To maintain these business models in their optimal state, continuous monitoring and evaluation of the state of the soil is needed. Thus, some soil health indicators and their possible monitoring techniques are included below. 4.2.1 Monitoring Soil Health: key variables According to the recent EEA report, the following table shows the main soil threats, which are monitored by a set of well-established, easily understandable indicators, fed by soil physical, chemical and biological parameters (Table 3). 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 Soil threat Indicator Thresholds Comment Soil organic carbon loss Cropland Falling below optimal SOC level Light soils: <1.2% SOC Medium soils: 1.2-1.9% SOC Heavy soils: >1.9% SOC SOC: clay ratio (Johannes et al., 2017): optimum SOC content as 10% of the clay content/vulnerability limit Nutrient loss Agriculture Exceedance of critical levels of mineral nitrogen (agricultural land) NH3 in air: 1-3mg NH3/m3 Mineral N: sum of available NH4 and N03 N03 in groundwater: 50mg N03/l N in surface water: 1.0-2.5mg N/l Forest land N limitation based on exceedance of C: N ratio C: N ratio 20-25 Forest floor organic layer Leakage from forests: 1m Agriculture Falling below optimal phosphorus P concentration: 25-35mg/kg (optimal Extractable P concentration < optimum (value range refers to Mehlich 3-ICP; also available P-Bray PI and Olsen P) P limitation based on exceedance of N:P ratio N:P ratio >18 (coniferous forests) Forest land N:P ratio >25 (deciduous forests) Acidification Agriculture Exceedance of critical pH levels pH<4.5 -4.7 (critical) Risk of Al toxicity pH<5-5.5 (avoid) Limited availability of Ca, Mg and 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 Forest land Exceedance of critical inorganic Al levels Base cation: Al ratio= 1 (0.5-2.0) Ca2+, Mg2+ and K+ Soil pollution All land uses Exceedance of screening values for critical risk from heavy metals and organic pollutants Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn, As, Hg, Ni, Cr Country-specific values vary broadly and are not necessarily comparable Organic pollutants Stratification by land use and soil texture Soil erosion Agriculture Exceedance of actual rate of soil loss by water erosion 2t/ha/year for shallow soils (<70 cm depth) Soil formation rate: 0.3-1.4t/ha/year 4/ha/year for deeper soils (>70 cm) Preliminary thresholds, derivation of site-adapted tolerable soil loss rates recommended The current indicator description in this report includes only soil erosion by water, whereas the threshold addresses all other erosion types Soil biodiversity loss Loss of soil biodiversity (subindicators) To be developed: excedance of safe minimum standards of ecosystem conservation. Excedance of operating ranges (OR) for specific soil animals and microorganisms Requires sub-indicators by species and/or functional group 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 Soil compaction Harmful subsoil compaction (subindicators) Priority (sub)-indicators: Satured hydraulic conductivity (Ks)<10cm/day Air capacity (AC) <5% Exceedance of 'action' values (Zink et al.2011) Secondary subindicators with available thresholds: bulk density,internal soil strength, air permeability and oxygen diffusion. Table 3. Overview of the main threats and their indicators (updated by EEA in Jan 2023) 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 Soil environment Indicator Soil property Air regime Air storage Air capacity Bulk density Air flow Pore continuity Oxygen diffusion Air permeability Water regime Water storage Available water capacity Bulk density Water seepage Hydraulic conductivity (saturated/unsaturated) Pore continuity Flux directions: isotropy/anisotropy Thermal regime Heat storage / Heat flux Heat capacity and conductivity Thermal diffusivity Pore continuity Water content Habitat for living organisms Microbial composition Diversity and community structure Abundance of functional species groups Oxic/anoxic taxa and distribution (e.g. methanogens; sulphate-reducing bacteria or ectomycorrhizal fungi) 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 Physical soil regime: soil strength Deformation status Bulk density Proctor density (a) Average mean diameter Of aggregates Stress strain (b) Stress Stress propagation Precompression stress Crushing strength Shear strength Ratio of precompression stress to actually applied Changes in air, water, thermal flow processes and biological regimes due to stress strain and shear stress-induced distortion Root functions Rootability Root length and root surface density Nutrient availability Penetration resistance Table 5. Soil indicators and properties for soil compaction. Source: EEA Soil monitoring in Europe 2022 doi: 10.2800/956606 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 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 Soil pollutants Soil pollution is a serious concern that can arise from a variety of sources. The two main types of soil pollution are point source pollution and diffuse pollution. Point source pollution is caused by a single identifiable source, such as an industrial spill, while diffuse pollution comes from multiple sources, such as agricultural land management practices and atmospheric deposition. Detecting the impact of pollutants due to diffusion is a complex process that requires careful monitoring over time. In most cases, the assessment of trends related to soil pollution is based on modelling techniques. Heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, are some of the most common and damaging contaminants. These metals can accumulate in soil over time, leading to toxic levels that can harm plants, animals, and humans. They can also leach into groundwater, posing a threat to drinking water supplies. Another major group of soil contaminants is pesticides and herbicides, which are widely used in agriculture and landscaping. These chemicals can persist in the soil for years, affecting soil fertility and potentially contaminating water sources. Some pesticides have been linked to cancer and other serious health problems, making their presence in soil a significant public health concern. Industrial pollutants, such as petroleum products, solvents, and chemicals, can also contaminate soil. These substances are often released into the environment through spills, leaks, and improper disposal, and can have serious long-term effects on soil quality and fertility. In addition, radionuclides, which are radioactive materials that can occur naturally or as a result of human activities causing serious health problems, including cancer and genetic damage, and can persist in soil for thousands of years. To manage and remediate polluted sites, several sub-indicators can be used, including soil polluting activity, the number of contaminated sites, progress in site management, expenditures on remediation, groundwater incidents, and dominant pollutants. Proper monitoring and management of these indicators can help prevent further soil pollution and ensure that polluted sites are remediated in a timely and effective manner (EEA,2022) Soil biodiversity Increasing soil biodiversity has positive impacts on almost all soil functions. Despite knowing many of the positive impacts of healthy soil biodiversity, there is a lack of knowledge about the status of soil biodiversity and how to quantify it correctly. A variety of biodiversity quantification methods exist, but sometimes most of them are not species-based due to the great diversity and lack of knowledge about the relationships between the different taxa found in the soil. The French Soil Quality Monitoring Network initiative allowed the sampling of 1700 different points, enabling characterise microbial communities, bacterial biodiversity and microbial biomass, under different soil types and land uses. The LUCAS survey coordinated by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre included 2018 a soil biodiversity component including DNA 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 metabarcoding of bacteria, archaea, fungi and other eukaryotes. The ultimate aim of this was to characterise communities of soil organisms and identify species by associating them with soil properties, climatic conditions and land cover. According to Aksoy et al. (2017), variables as pH, soil textural class, organic matter and land use/land cover are the “changeable” parameters with the highest importance to estimate the soil biodiversity potential. This potential can be mapped indirectly via proxies through these variables. Thresholds for these variables could be used to spatially delineate “risk” areas for certain soil faunal groups as earthworms, collembolans, etc (Table 7). 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 Indicator Creamer et al. (2019) Huberet al.(2008) Breure (2004) Diversity of earthworms X X X Diversity of collembolans X Microbial biomass X X X Diversity of nematodes X X Soil texture X Bulk density X Groundwater table depth X pH X C:N ratio X N:P ratio X Soil organic matter X Organic carbon content X Table 6. Indicators for soil biodiversity proposed by different authors (EEA Soil monitoring in Europe 2022) 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 Variable Classes of parameters for scoring soil biodiversity potential pH <4 4-5.2 5.2-8.2 >8.2 Soil textural class Coarse Medium Medium-fine Fine Organic matter (%) <1 <2 <3 >4 Potential evapotranspiration(mm) <-500 until 500 >500 - Annual average temperature (ᵒC) <5 5 to 20 >20 - Soil biomass productivity Poor Average Good - Land use/land cover Artificial Arable Permanent crops Others Table 7. List of parameters with high importance to estimate soil biodiversity potential. (Source: Aksoy et al. (2017) 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 Soil acidification Soil acidification is a serious threat to soil health that occurs when the acid neutralizing capacity of the soil is reduced, leading to a decrease in pH. This threat is mainly caused by the precipitation of sulphur dioxide, ammonia, and nitric acid, and has predominantly affected agricultural soils and forests. Furthermore, the acidity of soils can be caused by soil parent material, soils will become acidic after different lengths of time. The use of ammonium fertilizers in agricultural soils is a major contributor to this problem. These compounds form nitrates and hydrogen ions, which decrease the availability of nutrients for plants. The pH level of the soil is an important indicator of soil health as it is closely related to soil fertility and vegetation growth. When the pH level is very low, the availability of important nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium is limited, and the concentration of toxic elements such as aluminium, manganese, and cadmium can increase. This can lead to restricted growth of plants and soil microorganisms due to the lack of nutrient availability and metal toxicity. Soil acidification is also linked to reduced tree vitality, nutrition, and plant species diversity in forest undergrowth (EEA,2022) In agricultural soils, pH and base saturation are the indicators commonly used to assess soil acidity status as they are related to nutrient availability and subsequent crop growth. However, some studies have shown a correlation between soil acidification, aluminium content, and dieback in forest soils. pH is a standardized soil health indicator that is widely used because it is easy to measure and study. A lot of literature exists that describes optimal plant growth thresholds according to pH, as well as average pH values according to soil type. Therefore, proper management of soil pH levels is critical to ensuring soil health and maximizing crop yields. 4.3 Policy conditions The new EU Soil strategy for 2030 sets the vision to have all soils in healthy conditions by 2050. It proposes a combination of voluntary and legislative action to help to achieve the objectives of the strategy. Soil health laws proposed in this new initiative will be complementary to the legislative proposal for EU targets to restore degraded ecosystems, especially those with the most potential to provide ecosystem services and to prevent natural disasters (COM (2021) 699 final). The proposal identifies numerous aspects that should be regulated and considered. Most aspects relate directly to the NOVASOIL project, including: indicators of soil health, and its range of values, requirements for sustainable soil use, monitoring and reporting of soil condition, options for identifying, registering and remediating contaminated sites, etc. In the time frame of the project, policy demands coming from the European Green Deal, Farm to Fork strategy, Zero pollution action plan, Biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the new EU Soil Health Law, will be of relevance for the project. This project will be useful in reaching the targets of the Sustainable 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 Development Goals (SDGs) as SDG2, SDG6, SDG11, SDG13 and SDG15. All of these goals are related to soil health, and no one could be achieved without improving the management of the soil. NOVASOIL will exploit existing tools and instruments, contributing to EU policies, such as environmental objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), The Habitats Directive; supporting global commitments to achieve land degradation neutrality in the EU by 2030, through innovation actions concerning with soil health and business models. The new CAP 2023-2027 is built around 10 key objectives, which focus on economic, social and environmental goals. As well as the other European and national policies, the European countries will implement the new CAP with a CAP Strategic Plan at the national level. Strategy plans will be adapted to the needs of each country and objectives will change according to their needs. Countries were required to produce a thorough assessment of what must be done based on a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis of their territory and agri-food sector. The key policy objectives are: ● to ensure a fair income for farmers; ● to increase competitiveness; ● to improve the position of farmers in the food chain; ● climate change action; ● environmental care; ● to preserve landscapes and biodiversity; ● to support generational renewal; ● vibrant rural areas; ● to protect food and health quality; ● fostering knowledge and innovation. Other policies such as LULUCF Regulation, National Emission Ceilings Directive, Eighth Environment Action Programme 2030 or the Water Framework Directive could influence this project. 4.4 Legal conditions the will of NOSAVOIL project is to contribute to the strengthening of soil health legislation and to implement of sustainable business models that invest in improving soil health. Indeed, legal guarantees are essential to develop this king of business. Currently, European environmental legislation covers some but not all environmental aspects. The degrees of legal protection for air or water are different from those for soil resources. Without strict laws to protect soil, all efforts to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal (climate neutrality, biodiversity restoration, zero pollution or sustainable food systems) will be in vain. To develop this, the EU needs to take into account the multi-functionality of soil and develop an advanced legislative framework on soil health. Following the objectives of the new EU Soil Strategy 2030, the EU Commission is set to table a proposal for a new legislative initiative on soil health, that responds to efforts to protect and restore soil from the multitude of threats facing soil in Europe through the new Soil Health Law. The goals of this legislation include improving soil quality, reducing soil degradation and erosion, and promoting the sustainable use of soil resources. The legislation also aims to improve soil data collection, assessment, and monitoring, and to increase awareness of the 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 importance of soil health. This new legislation builds upon the existing EU soil framework directive and other relevant EU laws. The following key aspects are going to be amended: Principle of integration The principle of integrating soil health within the European Union aims to merge soil protection with other policies such as agriculture, environment, and spatial planning. This principle acknowledges the interrelatedness of soil health and other environmental and socio-economic factors and endeavours to maintain a balance between the diverse functions and uses of soil. The primary objective is to guarantee that soil is managed sustainably, preserving its ecological and productive capacity for future generations. The EU's soil framework directive and other applicable legislation embody this principle (Kolpak et Fornabaio, 2022) Principle of subsidiarity and soil protection The subsidiarity principle of EU soil health emphasizes that decisions concerning soil protection should be made at the most suitable level of government, whether it be at the local, regional, national, or EU level. It enables the EU to exercise its powers when EU intervention is necessary to achieve its objective, but cannot be effectively accomplished at the Member State level. This principle is rooted in the belief that the individuals closest to the affected communities and environments are better suited to make decisions affecting soil health. The subsidiarity principle ensures that the EU does not intervene in areas where action is not needed, and enables national and local authorities to take the appropriate measures to safeguard soil health. It is unlikely that the EU Committee of the Regions will oppose the principle of subsidiarity in the Soil Health Law. The Committee has expressed its support for the EU Soil Strategy 2030 and its efforts to promote soil protection through a European framework. While the misuse of this principle has been used to obstruct the 2006 Soil Framework Directive, legislation on soil protection at the EU level is urgently required and would comply with the subsidiarity principle. The Soil Strategy for 2030 indicates that the new Soil Health Law will undergo a subsidiarity check, in accordance with Article 5 TEU requirements. The new Soil Health Law will be critical in filling the legislative gap that contributes to inadequate soil management practices and the consequent stress on soil. This aspect is crucial in establishing the legislative basis for each business model and regulating it in accordance with the location (Kolpak et Fornabaio, 2022). Monitoring soil through LUCAS Land use and Coverage Area frame Survey (LUCAS) is a method by The Statistical Office of the European Union (EUROSTAT) to gather information on land cover and land use. LUCAS is an essential tool to assess the impact on the environment and agriculture, serving to evaluate the state of the Common Agricultural Policy. In addition, it can be used to inform climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. It is key to generating climate indicators as well as biodiversity indicators, playing a fundamental role in the Soil Health Law. Data gathered through LUCAS Soil will ensure robust sciencebased decision-making, supporting the implementation of the law through 11 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 interaction, necessitating interfacing with sustainability and environmental sciences/landscape ecology. NOVASOIL proposes a problem-oriented integration of these fields of expertise using a combination of selected instruments. Legal aspects (current legal framework and needed changes) will have a prominent role in the project in order to ensure the feasibility of business models in addition to guaranteeing the sustainability and soil health framework. The link between soil health policy programs and soil health indicators needs to be strengthened also through common methodological standards and structured databases. A specific emphasis will be put on the role of new technology, in connection with result-based payments and for involvement in chain valorisation. Most of the items listed in the mechanism’s categories are somehow related to behaviour and decision making. 4.7.2 Costs/Benefits The most classical economic basis to analyse behaviour is to consider the costs and benefits of the proposed business models. Costs and benefits for land users are the most common focus, but the public administration, chain actors, input providers, etc, should be taken into account too. It is not only important to know the total costs and benefits, but to break down both concepts in all their forms helps to understand and analyse the different transactions that take place after the implementation of the models. The relevance of these transaction costs is huge, because it is a general issue in environmental policy (Coggan et al., 2010). Specifically private and public transaction costs in the form of administrative costs can be determinants for policy feasibility (EU Commission, 2019) 4.7.3 Acceptability Generally, acceptability refers to the quality of a business model to be satisfactorily accepted by potential participants, specifically land users. This may be connected to some particular characteristic of the business models. For example, cultural acceptability would be an important point to consider. Knowing what type of land user we are going to deal with. Birge and Herzon (2019) already distinguished 4 categories of farmers based on their integration of ecological results into farming, determined by nature values being: 1) central to farmer thinking 2) well-integrated 3) viewed positively with limited actions and, 4) mainly absent. 4.7.4 Preferences Land users could show different preferences depending on business model attributes relevant to soil health. Preferences in landowners could change depending on the region where the possible business model is located. Acceptability and business model preference surveys could be created and circulated to land users in potential business model creation zones. The potential of surveys between landowners was tested by Cortés-Capano et al (2021), this type of methodology would be interesting to apply at the local level, to find business opportunities according to the behaviour of land users and potential investors. 12 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 4.8 Performance/evaluation Considering the current situation with the development of new soil health policies, such as CAP 2023-2027, and the emphasis on innovative and sustainable solutions such as business models supported by scientific results, evaluation is a fundamental part of proving that a business model is viable in the context it is put forward. A wide range of parameters that influence and define the performance of a business model have always been discussed in the literature. The design of future business models is a current topic of discussion that reiterates the importance of their compliance with environmental policies. As expected, the main performance indicators are characterised by underlying criteria related with the above-mentioned policies. For example, effectiveness, as a parameter driven by the environmental effectiveness (if the business model complies with regulations and policies associated with the protection of the environment and its implementation does not negatively affect the “environment health”) and the cost-effectiveness, i.e, despite the business model complies with the environmental requirements, if it is not cost-effective for the actors involved, it could not be carried out. In addition to this parameter, the following list of performance indicators have been selected: longevity, social capital , acceptance, equity, profitability, compatibility, flexibility and targeting. In many cases, the performance indicators are correlated, for example, if we have a business design where the life cycle and the stability are inappropriate, this aspect can have immediate effects on another indicator as effectiveness, reinforcing adversities to adopt the business model. For this, there is the process of evaluating the design of the business model, and a sort of “filter” that designs whose indicators pass this validity filter can be carried out. 4.9 Overview The NOVASOIL project will adapt the classic CANVAS model (Osterwalder et al., 2010) to the soil health business models (Figure 3) in order to facilitate the comprehension of the business key elements. As it is indicated in Table 8, Osterwalder's canvas has nine boxes: customer segments, value propositions, channels, customer relationships, revenue streams, key resources, key activities, key partnerships, and cost structure. With the business model design template, a group of persons can easily describe its business model. 13 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 Figure 3 Business Canvas model design template: nine business model building blocks (Osterwalder et al., 2010). The new version will be shown in the WP3 deliverables and forthcoming update of this framework. 4.10 List of potential performance indicators Effectiveness The effectiveness of the business model relies on two fundamental aspects: the environmental effectiveness and the "monetary" effectiveness of the model. a) Environmental effectiveness It can be defined as the level of care that the business model has with respect to natural capital, ecosystem services and the improvement of these compared to the initial moment of the model's implementation. b) Cost-effectiveness According to Batáry et al. (2015), the cost‐effectiveness of solutions is defined by the relation between environmental outputs to cost (inputs), while costs to be potentially considered are program costs, transaction costs, farm implementation costs, etc. Longevity Estimated duration of the life cycle of the business model and its stability over time. In addition, the stability in the measurement of the monitoring data, 14 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 which allows to evaluate over time the trend of the model according to socioeconomic and environmental conditions. Acceptance Acceptance refers to the ability of stakeholders to understand the implications of the implementation of the model and its importance for soil health, while understanding the misconception of loss of benefits through unfamiliar sustainable management practices or unfamiliar business models. Acceptance is influenced by a broad number of endogenous and exogenous factors, such as framework conditions, behavioural aspects, education and obviously, knowledge. Targeting Bad targeting of business model objectives is a big criterion for low economic and environmental effectiveness (Robalino et al., 2008). Improved targeting involves the following aspects: ● Spatial targeting ● Cost/benefit targeting ● Structural targeting ● Environmental targeting Flexibility Increased flexibility enables the adaptation of business models to different context situations, conditions and challenges. Equity/Fairness Equity and fairness in the context of business models is a point to take into account when designing and implementing them. According to Schomers and Matzdorf, (2013), equity in the context of payments for environmental services includes three elements namely equity in access, equity in the outcome and fair payments. Perceived fairness is influenced mainly by the perception of risk, costs and benefits. Compatibility The design and implementation of the business model need to be situated according to the stakeholders and legal conditions where the system is to be created. ● Legal systems (new measures, national laws and regulations…) ● Business design of participants (the acceptance of the environmentally friendly measures by the land users) Profitability PES business models can be directly profitable for the land users as well as for other actors in the business model. In contrast, business models that don't cover the costs of management changes and therefore reduce the profitability of the involved actors are assumed to not be accepted. 15 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 Social/cultural capital In addition to economic capital, this also exists in the form of social capital. For the ideals of investment in soil health and sustainable living to remain, the development of this social/cultural capital must be mobilized. This type of capital is transferable between its different forms (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011). It found that the four components of social capital; trust, norms, connectedness and power, can all influence the decision of land users to change their soil management. Future research, policy and practice should consider whether a lack of effective social capital might hinder the adoption of new practices. Diversity is a good point; collaborative groups should work constructively together to build an effective social capital, where they can codefine and develop measures to sustainably manage soils (Rust et al., 2020). ● Trust: a key attribute of social capital which promotes collective action (La Porta et al., 2000; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). It relates to accepting information when deciding whether to start the “green” transition through more sustainable soil management practices (Rust et al., 2020). ● Connectedness: the configuration of social interactions, enabling the better exchange of knowledge. This is also influenced by social norms and how land users prefer to adhere to the status quo (Inman et al., 2018) ● Norms: if the norms within a land user community is to stick to the status quo, it will be difficult for them to deviate from established standards, but other measures such as financial incentives or policy regulations help to create change. ● Power: plays a decisive role with respect to social capital, designating who holds the most influential position in a network. The availability of information may vary depending on which entity or persons have the most influence within the business model. One of the ideas pursued by the project is equity among all the actors, since the correct collaborative action of all will make possible a more equitable and sustainable development (Rust et al., 2020). 5 Methods and stakeholder engagement In general, involving stakeholders in designing business models can lead to several benefits, such as increased stakeholder engagement, better alignment of the business model with stakeholder needs and preferences, improved decision-making, and increased sustainability of the business model. It can also lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the business environment and the challenges and opportunities it presents. Regarding initiatives to develop business models related to soil health and the incorporation of stakeholders, several initiatives have been carried out around the world. Some examples are: - The Soil Health Institute (SHI): This US non-profit organization developed a business model for restoring soil health through collaboration between farmers, businesses, researchers and conservation groups. (Morgan, 2022; Morgan et al., 2022) 16 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 - Soil Association: This UK-based organization developed a business model for producing organic food and improving soil health by implementing sustainable practices (Poux & Aubert, 2018; Payton, 2021). - Biome Makers: This California-based company developed a business model based on DNA sequencing to improve soil health and agricultural production through a better understanding of soil microorganisms (Acedo & Ferrero, 2021). - SoilCares: This Netherlands-based agricultural technology company developed a business model for rapid and inexpensive measurement of soil nutrients to improve sustainable soil management (Ros et al., 2022). The topic of stakeholder engagement has been extensively studied in recent years. Sterling and colleagues (2017) identified three primary forms of stakeholder engagement: externally driven, self-organized, and mixed. In their study, they identified various dimensions that impact the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement processes, emphasizing the importance of comprehending the governance and socio-cultural context across all forms of stakeholder engagement. Several studies have suggested various approaches to incorporate research findings into the design process. For instance, Hassanzadeh and colleagues (2019) have proposed interactive modelling as a means of involving stakeholders in water management, along with providing a framework for stakeholder engagement. 6 Case studies management 6.1 Soil indicators selected For each case study, careful consideration has been given to the selection of key soil indicators that will provide measurable insights into soil health, productivity, and sustainability. These indicators have been selected based on their relevance to soil functions, their ability to reflect changes over time, and their applicability across different biogeographical zones in an easy way. Additionally, they were selected based on their potential to measure or monitor specific soil threats. NOVASOIL case study leaders will compile soil information based on the indicators and laboratory methods proposed according to their budget and relevance for the case study: • Trace elements (mg/kg) such as aluminium (Al), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), and sulphur (S) are essential in monitoring soil contamination and pollution levels, particularly heavy metals. These elements, when present in excess, can be toxic to plants, microorganisms, and even humans through the food chain. Monitoring their concentrations allows us to assess the risk of heavy metal contamination, which can inhibit plant growth and reduce microbial activity, affecting overall soil health. Laboratory method proposed: ICP-OES/Dig.Ác.- ICP-OES/MIII/-. 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 • Macroelements (mg/kg) like nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and sodium (Na) are fundamental nutrients required for plant growth. An imbalance in these elements, whether through deficiency or excess, can lead to reduced fertility, soil degradation, and even environmental issues such as eutrophication (especially from excess nitrogen and phosphorus) and salinization (due to sodium accumulation). Additionally, is related with other soil indicators as SAR or ESP. Laboratory method proposed: ICP-OES/MIII - Kjeldahl/-. • Microelements (mg/kg), including boron (B), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and manganese (Mn) are crucial for various plant metabolic processes. Insufficient levels of these micronutrients can lead to decreased crop productivity, reduced plant health, and diminished soil fertility. Laboratory method proposed: ICP-OES/MIII. • Nitrates (mg/kg) are an important indicator of nitrogen availability in the soil. High nitrate concentrations, however, may signal over-fertilization or pollution. Nitrates are prone to leaching into groundwater, which can cause environmental issues such as eutrophication in aquatic systems and pollution of drinking water sources. Laboratory method proposed: UV-Vis/- • The Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) is a critical indicator of the relative concentration of sodium in comparison to calcium and magnesium. It is particularly important in assessing the risk of soil salinization, as high SAR values can lead to poor water infiltration, soil dispersion, and sodium toxicity. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation • The Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) measures the proportion of sodium in the soil’s exchange complex. A high ESP value suggests that sodium is accumulating in the soil, which can degrade soil structure, reduce its permeability, and hinder plant root development. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation • Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) represents the soil’s ability to retain and supply essential cations to plant roots. Soils with higher CEC values are better able to hold onto nutrients, making them more fertile and productive. Low CEC soils, on the other hand, may struggle to retain essential nutrients, leading to nutrient leaching and reduced soil fertility. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation • Electric Conductivity (EC) is used to assess soil salinity by measuring the soil’s ability to conduct an electrical current. High EC values indicate elevated salinity levels, which can hinder plant water uptake, affect microbial activity, and reduce soil fertility, ultimately leading to soil degradation. Laboratory method proposed: Conductivity meter in soilwater extracts • Clay Content (%) affects the soil’s ability to retain water and nutrients, as well as its structure. Higher clay content improves water retention and nutrient holding capacity but may lead to soil compaction and poor aeration if improperly managed. Laboratory method proposed: Hydrometer • Silt Content (%) is a key component of soil texture, influencing water retention and fertility. Soils with high silt content are more prone to erosion 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 due to their fine particles and less stable structure. Laboratory method proposed: Hydrometer • Bulk Density (g/cm3) is an indicator of soil compaction and porosity. Higher bulk density often indicates compacted soil, which has reduced pore space for air and water, limiting root growth and increasing the risk of erosion. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation • USDA Soil Classification is used to identify the soil type based on physical and chemical properties. Understanding the soil classification helps in selecting appropriate management practices land use. Laboratory method proposed: Based on the USDA Soil Taxonomy system using field observations and laboratory analysis. • pH is a fundamental indicator of soil acidity or alkalinity, which affects nutrient availability and microbial activity. Extremes in pH can lead to nutrient deficiencies or toxicities, as well as impact soil biological processes, making it crucial to maintain pH within an optimal range for plant growth. Laboratory method proposed: Potentiometer (pH-meter) • C/N Ratio measures the balance between total carbon and total nitrogen in soil. It provides insights into the rate of organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling. A well-balanced C/N ratio supports healthy decomposition processes, while an imbalance may slow down these processes, impacting soil fertility. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation through total C and N ratio • Organic Matter (%) is a key indicator of soil health as it influences soil structure, water retention, and nutrient availability. High levels of organic matter promote soil fertility and resilience, whereas the loss of organic matter results in degradation, poor soil structure, and increased vulnerability to erosion. Laboratory method proposed: Vol. Redox / Ignition method. • Organic Carbon (%) reflects the carbon sequestered in the soil and is a critical indicator of soil’s capacity to store carbon and support microbial life. Maintaining high levels of organic carbon is essential for promoting soil fertility and mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. Laboratory method proposed: Vol. Redox / Ignition method. • Field Capacity (%) measures the maximum amount of water the soil can hold after excess water has drained away. Soils with low field capacity may suffer from drought stress, while soils with overly high field capacity may become waterlogged, impacting root health and plant growth. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation • Available Water (%) indicates the amount of water that plants can access within the soil. Insufficient available water can lead to drought conditions, resulting in poor plant growth and increased soil vulnerability to degradation. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation • Saturation (%) is a measure of how much of the soil’s pore space is filled with water. High saturation can lead to waterlogging, suffocating plant roots and creating conditions that promote soil erosion and structural collapse. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation 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 • Wilting Point (%) represents the soil moisture level at which plants can no longer extract water. When the soil moisture drops below this level, plants experience drought stress, and if prolonged, crop failure may occur. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation • Nematode Diversity, specifically saprophytic and phytopathogenic nematodes, are important biological indicators of soil health. High quantity of saprophytic nematodes could increase the organic matter in the soil, enhance the fertility, microbial activity, etc. Laboratory method proposed: Microscopic identification • Fungi Diversity provides critical insights into the soil's microbial health. Fungi play essential roles in nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and soil structure. A reduction in fungal diversity may indicate ecosystem degradation, while the presence of specific fungal pathogens may signal a risk to certain plants. Laboratory method proposed: Microscopy to identify fungal genus and family. • Tree Cover and Ground Cover (%) are physical indicators that help assess soil protection from erosion and the overall land management practices. Loss of ground cover increases erosion risk, reduces organic matter inputs, and accelerates the degradation of soil health. Measure the changes of the vegetation cover in pilot sites through the time allow to take decisions over the business models. Laboratory method proposed: Calculation The use or measureme nt of other complement ary indicators, in addition to those presented above, may be employed if they allow for a deeper understandi ng of any specific soil threat. Along with the soil indicator information, each case study must include environment al data about pilot site. In the following table, CS Partner Country Coord X Coord Y Altitu de (m.a.s .l) Biogeographi cal Zone 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 leaders will found the extra information to complete.CS name Tamarguillo Park Evenor Spain 37.410206 -5.9061 25 Mediterranean Pedoclimatic Zone Mean annual temperat ure (°C ) Mean annual precipitati on (mm) Mean Annual evapotranspira tion (mm) Soil Type Actual Main Land Use Last Main Land Use Mediterranean semi-arid 17.23 520 700 Regoso ls Urban area Arable land Table 8. Template for NOVASOIL case study leaders 6.2 Impact evaluation of practices To effectively evaluate the impact of a specific management practice on soil health, a comprehensive monitoring program will be implemented. This program will involve the systematic collection and analysis of data on key soil health indicators both before and after the implementation of the practice. By comparing these datasets, it will be possible to quantify the changes in soil health and attribute them to the specific management practice. The selection of soil health indicators will be tailored to the specific land use and management practice under investigation. For instance, in agricultural settings, indicators such as organic matter content, pH, and nutrient availability will be prioritized. In forested areas, soil depth, cation exchange capacity, and biodiversity indicators will be given greater emphasis. A combination of physical, chemical, and biological indicators will be considered to provide a comprehensive assessment of soil health. Baseline Data Collection Prior to implementing the management practice, baseline data will be collected from multiple sampling locations within the study area. Soil samples will be collected at various depths to account for vertical variability. These samples will be analysed to determine the initial status of soil health with respect to the selected indicators. The information will be collected and arranged according to soil depth. The topsoil will be considered as the first 15 cm of soil, and the subsoil will be from 15 cm onwards. This would be defined as Topsoil (0-15 cm) and Subsoil (>15 cm), where typically the subsoil is determined to extend to around 30 cm. For sample collection, the standards followed by the laboratories of each partner will be adhered to, with an effort to align with the methodologies mentioned 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 The direct follow-ups of this document will be in: - D1.3 Draft framework in month 18. - D1.4 Final framework un month 36. Deliverable 1.3 "Draft Framework" differs from the present document in the following terms. This document includes a set of definitions and indicators related to soil health models that will be considered in the following project tasks. On the other hand, Deliverable 1.3 presents a set of success stories as well as the main advances in the rest of the WPs to facilitate the design and implementation of business models. The following sections will be considered for this deliverable: sector needs and demands; management practices related to soil health; social innovation and incentives available for different business models in different European countries. The final version of the framework will be designed as a guide and will bring together all the knowledge generated to carry out the implementation of a soil health business model and what factors must be considered. Additionally, it will include an update of the project's case studies, showing the impact of soil health. 8 Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the EU for funding, in the frame of the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement GA 101091268. The document reflects only the author’s view. The Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. 7 References Acedo A & Ferrero A (2021). Agricultural Trends and Challengues. Report 2021. BiomeMakers Adhikari K & Hartemink A. (2016). Linking soils to ecosystem services – A global review. Geoderma Vol 262, 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.009 Aksoy E, Louwagie G, Gardi C, Gregor M, Schröder C, Löhnertz M. (2017). Assessing soil biodiversity potentials in Europe. Science of The Total Environment. Volume 589, 1 July 2017, Pages 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.173 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 Almalki, Raid, Mehdi Khaki, Patricia M. Saco, and Jose F. Rodriguez. 2022. Monitoring and Mapping Vegetation Cover Changes in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas Using Remote Sensing Technology: A Review. Remote Sensing 14, no. 20: 5143. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14205143 Bagnall DK, Shanahan JF, Flanders A, Morgan CLS, Honeycutt CW. (2021). Soil health considerations for global food security. Ouvrard B & Strenger A. (2019). Incentives and Environmental Policies: From Theory to Empirical Novelties. Ecological Sciences Series. Agronomy Journal. DOI: 10.1002/agj2.20783 Barbosa-Junior MR, de Almeida-Moreira BR, de Brito Filho AL, Tedesco D, Shiratsuchi LS, da Silva RP. (2022). UAVs to Monitor and Manage Sugarcane: Integrative Review. Agronomy 2022, 12(3), 661; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030661 Batary P, Dicks LV, Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ. (2015). The role of agrienvironment schemes in conservation and environmental management: European Agri-Environment Schemes. Conservation Biology 29(4). DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12536 Blaufelder, C.; Levy, C.; Mannion, P.; Pinner, D., A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the climate challenge, McKinsey Report 29 January 2021. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/businessfunctions/sustainability/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-scaling-voluntarycarbon-markets-to-meet-the-climate-challenge Birge T & Herzon I. (2019). Exploring cultural acceptability of a hypothetical results-based agri-environment payment for grassland biodiversity J. Rural Stud., 67 (2) (2019), pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.006 Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne, S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M., Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K., Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U., Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C. S. (2013). Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 5380–5552, 2013. Borrelli P, Robinson DA, Fleischer LR, Lugato E, Ballabio C, Alewell C, Meusburger K, Modugno S, Schüt B, Ferro V, Bagarello V, Oost KV, Montanarella L, Panagos P. (2017). An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nature communications, 8, 2013 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7 Bot, A. & Benites, J. (2005) The Importance of Soil Organic Matter Key to Drought-Resistant Soil and Sustained Food and Production, FAO Soils Bulletin 80, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2005. p. 78. 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 Bruggeman A, Tubeileh A, Turkelboom F, Masri S. (1/4/2008). Water harvesting in olive orchards on degraded hill slopes in an arid area of northern Syria. Vienna, Austria. Burton, R. J., & Paragahawewa, U. H. (2011). Creating culturally sustainable agrienvironmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.11.001 Commonland (2017): 4 returns from Landscape Restoration. https://4returns.commonland.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Commonland-Publication.pdf Commonland (2020). Calculating the Value of 4 Returns of Large-Scale Holistic Landscape Restoration. https://commonland.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/Commonland-Landscape-Valuation-Report.pdf Conant RT, Ryan MG, Ågren GI, Birge HE, Davidson EA, Eliasson PE, Evans SE, Frey SD, Giardina CP, Hopkins FM, Hyvönen R, Kirschbaum MUF, Lavallee JM, Leifeld J, Parton WJ, Steinweg JM, Wallenstein MD, Wetterstedt JAM, Bradford MA. 2011. Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x Cortés-Capano, G., Hanley, N., Sheremet, O., Hausmann, A., Toivonen, T., Garibotto-Carton, G., Soutullo, A., & Di Minin, E. (2021). Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of nonmonetary incentives. Land Use Policy, 109, 105626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105626 D’Oleire-Oltmanns S, Marzolff I, Peter KD, Ries JB. (2012). Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for Monitoring Soil Erosion in Morocco. Remote Sens. 2012, 4(11), 3390-3416; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4113390 Daily, G. C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P. R., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, P., Mooney, H. A., Postel, S. L., Schneider, S. H.,Tilman, D. & Woodwell, G. (1997). Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems, Issues in Ecology [Issues Ecol.], Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-18. Ecology, 1(2), 1–18. Deluz C, Nussbaum M, Sauzet O, Gondret K, Boivin P. (2020). Evaluation of the Potential for Soil Organic Carbon Content Monitoring with Farmers. Front. Environ. Sci., 30 July 2020. Volume 8 - 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00113 De Vries W, Schulte-Uebbing L, Kros H, Voogd JC, Louwagie G. (2021). Spatially explicit boundaries for agricultural nitrogen inputs in the European Union to meet air and water quality targets. Science of The Total Environment, Vol 786, 147283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147283 Doran, J.W. & Zeiss, M. (2000). Soil health and sustainability: Managing the biotic component of soil quality. Applied Soil Ecology 15(1):3-11. DOI: 10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00067-6 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 European Environment Agency .Soil monitoring in Europe – Indicators and thresholds for soil health assessments 2023 — 181 pp doi: 10.2800/956606 Fan Y, Wang X, Funk T, Rashid I, Herman B, Bompoti N, Mahmud MS, Chrysochoou M, Yang M, Vadas TM, Lei Y, Li B. (2022). A Critical Review for RealTime Continuous Soil Monitoring: Advantages, Challenges, and Perspectives. Environ Sci Technol. 2022 Oct 4;56(19):13546-13564. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c03562. Fell V, Matter A, Keller T, Boivin P. (2018). Patterns and Factors of Soil Structure Recovery as Revealed From a Tillage and Cover-Crop Experiment in a Compacted Orchard. Front. Environ. Sci., 13 November 2018, Volume 6 - 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00134 Fripp E. 2014. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): A practical guide to assessing the feasibility of PES projects. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR Gardi C, Montanarella L, Arrouays D, Bispo A, Lemanceau P, Jolivet C, Mulder C, Ranjard L, Römbke J, Rutgers M, Menta C. (2009). Soil biodiversity monitoring in Europe : ongoing activities and challenges. European Jounal of Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01177.x Gerard H. Ros, Sven E. Verweij, Sander J. C. Janssen, Janjo De Haan, and Yuki Fujita. 2022. An Open Soil Health Assessment Framework Facilitating Sustainable Soil Management. Environmental Science & Technology 2022 56 (23), 17375-17384 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c04516 Gholizadeh A, Zizala D, Saberioon M, Borukva L. (2018). Soil organic carbon and texture retrieving and mapping using proximal, airbone and Sentinel-2 spectral imaging. Remote Sensing of Environment. Volume 218, 1 December 2018, Pages 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.09.015 Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute JR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JM, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C. (2010). Food security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science. Vol 327, Issue 5967, pp 812-818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 Goulding, K., Powlson, D., Whitmore, A., Macdonald, A. (2013). Food Security Through Better Soil Carbon Management. In: Lal, R., Lorenz, K., Hüttl, R., Schneider, B., von Braun, J. (eds) Ecosystem Services and Carbon Sequestration in the Biosphere. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6455-2_4 Guo M. (2021). Soil Health Assessment and Management: Recent Development in Science and Practices. Soil Syst. 2021, 5(4), 61; https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems5040061 Hassanzadeh, E., Strickert, G., Morales-Marin, L., Noble, B., Baulch, H., ShupenaSoulodre, E., & Lindenschmidt, K. (2019). A framework for engaging stakeholders in water quality modeling and management: Application to the Qu’Appelle River Basin, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 1117–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.016 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 Hannam I & Boer B. (2004). Drafting legislation for Sustainable Soils: A Guide. IUCN Environmental Law Programme No. 52. Hewitt A, Dominati E, Webb T, Cuthill T. (2015). Soil natural capital quantification by the stock adequacy method. Geoderma. Vol 241-242, 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.11.014 Hiederer, R. and Perpiña Castillo, C., Changes in soil organic C-stocks from land use change to estimate CO2 emissions and removals from the LUISA Territorial Reference Scenario 2017, EUR 29436 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-97248-5, doi:10.2760/605065, JRC113691. Johannes A, Matter A, Schulin R, Weisskopf P, Baveye PC, Boivin P. (2017). Optimal organic carbon values for soil structure quality of arable soils. Does clay content matter?. Geoderma, Volume 302, 15 September 2017, Pages 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.04.021 Inman A, Winter M, Wheeler R, et al. (2018) An exploration of individual, social and material factors influencing water pollution mitigation behaviours within the farming community. Land use policy. 2018; 70: 16–26. Kihara, J., Nziguheba, G., Zingore, S., Coulibaly, A., Esilaba, A., Kabambe, V., Njoroge, S., Palm, C., & Huising, J. (2016). Understanding variability in crop response to fertilizer and amendments in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 229, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.05.012 Kolpak G & Fornabaio L. (2022). EU Soil Health Law. Legal principles underpinning the framework. ClientEarth La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (2000). Trust in Large Organizations. In P. Dasgupta, P., and I. Serageldin (eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective (pp. 310-324). Washington, D. C.: World Bank. Morgan, C. L. S. (2022) How Agricultural Science Can Enable Ecosystem Service Markets [Abstract]. ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2022am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/141643 Morgan, C. L. S., Looker, N., Ackerson, J. P., Cloutier, M., Liptzin, D., & Honeycutt, C. W. (2022) Testing the Hypothesis That Soil Health Can Scale [Abstract]. ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2022am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/143869 Osterwalder, Alexander; Pigneur, Yves; Clark, Tim (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook For Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Strategyzer series. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470876411. OCLC 648031756. Ostrom E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763 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 Ouvrard B & Strenger A. (2019). Incentives and Environmental Policies: From Theory to Empirical Novelties. Ecological Sciences Series. Panagos P, Borrelli P, Meusberg K, Alewell C, Lugato E, Montanarella L. (2015). Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land Use Policy 48 (1015) 38-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.021 Panagos P, Ballabio C, Poesen J, Lugato E, Scarpa S, Montanarella L, Borrelli P. (2020). A Soil Erosion Indicator for Supporting Agricultural, Environmental and Climate Policies in the European Union. Remote Sensing 12(9), 1365; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12091365 Payton L (2021). Saving our soils. Healthy soils for our climate, nature and health. The Ashden Trust Piñeiro, V., Arias, J., Dürr, J. et al. (2020) A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat Sustain 3, 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y Posch M, Sander R, Schöpp W, Amann M. (2018). The 2017 critical loads data: Differences to earlier estimates and implications for current and future ecosystems protections. CIAM Report 1/2018. International Institute for Applied System Analysis. Poux, X., Aubert, P.-M. (2018). An agroecological Europe in 2050: multifunctional agriculture for healthy eating. Findings from the Ten Years For Agroecology (TYFA) modelling exercise, Iddri-AScA, Study N°09/18, Paris, France, 74 p. Prout, J. M., Shepherd, K. D., McGrath, S. P., Kirk, G. J. D. and Haefele, S. M. 2020. What is a good level of soil organic matter? An index based on organic carbon to clay ratio. European Journal of Soil Science. pp. 111. https://dx.doi.org/10/1111/ejss.13012 Robalino, Juan & Pfaff, Alexander & Sanchez-Azofefia, G. Arturo & Alpizar, Francisco & Leon, Carlos & Rodriguez, Carlos Manuel, 2008. Deforestation Impacts of Environmental Services Payments: Costa Rica’s PSA Program 2000–2005. Discussion Papers dp-08-24-efd, Resources For the Future. Rust NA, Ptak EN, Graversgaard M et al. (2020) Social capital factors affecting uptake of sustainable soil management practices: a literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. Emerald Open Res 2020, 2:8 (https://doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.13412.1) Saxby, H., M. Gkartzios, and K. Scott. 2018. ‘Farming on the edge’: wellbeing and participation in agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 58 (2):392–411. doi:10.1111/soru.12180. Scaramuzzi, S., Belletti, G. & Biagioni, P. (2020) Integrated Supply Chain Projects and multifunctional local development: the creation of a Perfume 11 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 Valley in Tuscany. Agric Econ 8, 5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-0190150-8 Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Keller T, Pedersen J, Stettler M. (2012). Rules of thumb for minimizing subsoil compaction. Soil Use and Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012.00411.x Schomers, S., & Matzdorf, B. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services, 6, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002 Stott, D.E., Moebius-Clune, B.N. (2017). Soil Health: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Field, D.J., Morgan, C.L.S., McBratney, A.B. (eds) Global Soil Security. Progress in Soil Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-43394-3_10 Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 172-194. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks. The Academy of Management Journal 41(4), 464-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/257085 Veerman, C., Pinto Correia, T., Bastioli, C., et al., Caring for soil is caring for life : ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature and climate : report of the Mission board for Soil health and food, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/821504