nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Mainstreaming Agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Its Value to Protecting and Enhancing Soil Ecosystem Services

verfasst von : Cairo Robb

Erschienen in: International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2022

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Patentsuche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter highlights the importance of soil biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services, and its relevance in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity ‘mainstreaming’ agenda, and Convention architecture. It provides case studies relating to the mainstreaming of soil biodiversity, as well as a ‘Soil Biodiversity Perception Checklist’, to help integrate soil biodiversity, soil health and soil ecosystem services into decision making at all levels and across all sectors, including in policy, and land use and management strategy and practice.

1 Introduction

The mainstreaming agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)¹ has, to date, focused chiefly on mainstreaming above-ground biodiversity. Yet it is widely acknowledged that a considerable—if largely undocumented—proportion of global biodiversity can be found below-ground. Decaëns (2006) suggested that the majority of animals in terrestrial habitats are soil inhabitants for at least one stage of their life cycle, and estimated that at least 25% of described living species are strictly soil or litter dwellers.² A recent review by Anthony et al. (2023) suggests that soil is likely home to 59 [+ or − sign] 15% of the species on Earth.³

Moreover, these hidden creatures are critical actors in vital soil functions that contribute to invaluable ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people—including food provisioning, nutrient cycling, water filtration and storage, climate regulation, flood defences, recycling, buffering pollution, and to such an extent that there could be no terrestrial life as we know it, ourselves included, without them.

The description of life in earth being “A Truly Epic Production”, as so beautifully expressed by Karl Ritz, is no overstatement. Ritz points out:

Soil is alive. Very alive. The total mass of living material in a typical arable soil is about 5 tonnes per hectare – in grasslands and forests it can be 20 times this, such that the biomass belowground always equals and sometimes exceeds that aboveground. In a handful of such arable soil, there will be 10 billion bacteria, scores of kilometers of fungal hyphae, tens of thousands of protozoa, thousands of nematodes, and hundreds of worms, insects, mites and other fauna. Life in soil is diverse. Very diverse. The genetic diversity of the soil biota always exceeds that found aboveground and by orders of magnitude – in our handful of soil, there will typically be 10 thousand “species” of bacteria and hundreds of species of the other forms.⁴

According to Ritz “soil biota are … essentially the biological engine of the earth, driving and governing many of the key processes that underpin the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems”⁵ and, of course, all the life, including our own, that depends on them. However, as he points out, “most of this life and biodiversity is invisible to humans”. While this can be taken literally in two senses—firstly because soil biomass is predominantly ‘microbial in scale’ and therefore cannot be seen by the naked eye, and secondly because soil is ‘opaque’ and cannot be looked into as can, for example, air or water⁶—it also, certainly among many people upon this earth, belies a more fundamental perception gap. And the consequence of all this results in the relative invisibility of soil biodiversity in policy, assessment processes and procedure. With this comes a failure to take the critical importance of soil biodiversity into account in decision-making.

At the same time, it almost goes without saying that above-ground biodiversity relies on the myriad of below-ground organisms for many of the same reasons that humans do. It relies on the ecosystem services facilitated by soils, including provisioning of primary production, water management, filtration and storage, and climate regulation. Indeed, the Status of the World’s Soil Resources Report 2015 (SWSR 2015) points out that

Essential services provided by soil biota include: regulating nutrient cycles; controlling the dynamics of soil organic matter; supporting soil carbon sequestration; regulating greenhouse gas emissions; modifying soil physical structure and soil water regimes; enhancing the amount and efficiency of nutrient acquisition by vegetation through symbiotic associations and nitrogen fixation by bacteria; and influencing plant and animal health through the interaction of pathogens and pests with their natural predators and parasites.⁷

This chapter considers how the CBD’s ‘mainstreaming’ agenda can be harnessed to promote soil health and to protect and enhance soil functions and the ecosystem services soils provide, and proposes a checklist to help integrate soil biodiversity, soil health and soil ecosystem services into policy, and into land use and management strategy, practice and decision-making.

2 Soil Biodiversity Mediated Ecosystem Services

2.1 Soil Ecosystem Services (SES)

The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defined ‘ecosystem services’ as “the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly”,⁸ and grouped them into four categories: (i) provisioning services, (ii) regulating services, (iii) cultural services, and (iv) supporting services. Some more recent classifications combine ‘regulating’ and ‘supporting’ services to identify three broad categories, namely ‘provisioning’, ‘regulation and maintenance’, and ‘cultural’ services.⁹

While clearly a valuable concept, there have been criticisms of the largely ‘scientific’ and ‘economic’ focus encapsulated by the concept of ‘ecosystem services’. In response, the broader concept of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) has been developed. The NCP approach emphasises ‘culture’ as being important in the links between people and nature, and calls attention to the need to value the social, cultural, spiritual and religious significance of nature, and recognise wider knowledge systems, including those of local communities and indigenous peoples.¹⁰

Soil ‘functions’ and ‘processes’ may be distinguished from soil ‘ecosystem services’, in the sense that soil ecosystem ‘services’, are considered to derive from the underlying biological, physical and chemical soil functions and processes, which themselves derive largely from soil properties, and against the background of human activity. Sometimes, however, these terms are used interchangeably, or combined in different ways, such as for example ‘soil ecosystem functions’.¹¹ As can be seen in the MEA definition above, ecosystem ‘services’ also encompasses ecosystem ‘goods’. Attempts have been made to try to clarify or stimulate coherence in relation to these concepts.¹² Lilburne et al. (2020) provide a useful recent summary of the literature on the relationship between soil functions and ecosystem services.¹³

In their seminal work on ecosystem services, Daily et al. (1997) described, and considered the value of, the ecosystem services supplied by soils.¹⁴ They concluded that “Soil provides an array of ecosystem services that are so fundamental to life that their total value could only be expressed as infinite.”¹⁵ Daily et al. (1997) did, at the same time, attempt to highlight the value of soil ecosystem services in monetary terms, and others have since presented frameworks or case studies for doing so,¹⁶ as interest in this subject increases.¹⁷ In their global review linking soils to ecosystem services, Adhikari and Hartemink (2016) have stressed the need to appreciate the contribution of soils to human welfare beyond food production, and make the point that “Soil ecosystem services depend on soil properties and their interaction, and are mostly influenced by its use and management.”¹⁸

Today’s heightened understanding of the ‘global’ nature of ‘wicked’ and interrelated problems requires us to acknowledge that soil ecosystem services are influenced and impacted by activities far beyond the use and management of the land whose services we may be interested in. And also that the soil ecosystem services provided by an area of soil can extend and have impacts well beyond the area of land, or the state, in which the soil sits.

2.2 Importance of SES for Above-Ground Biodiversity

Above-ground biodiversity is dependent on soil ecosystem services. Daily et al. (1997) observed that “The total value of soil is incalculable, as it includes the existence value of human society and of millions of other species.”¹⁹

In modern international policy, the importance of ‘soil’ to what we now term ‘ecosystem services’ (ES) and ‘nature’s contributions to people’ (NCP), has long been known.

The first line of the 1972 European Soil Charter, some fifty years ago, stated:

Soil is one of humanity’s most precious assets. It allows plants, animals and man to live on the earth’s surface.” It continued: “Soil is a living and dynamic medium” that is “vital to man’s existence as a source of food and raw materials”, and constitutes “a fundamental part of the biosphere and, together with vegetation and climate, helps to regulate the circulation and affects the quality of water.²⁰

During the fifty years since 1972, the scientific community has been developing its knowledge of soils and soil biodiversity and understanding of the links and feedbacks between soils, climate regulation, nutrient and water cycles, above and below-ground biodiversity, including vegetation, and the provision of ecosystem services. Considerable progress has been made, yet we are still only scratching the surface, with gaps and research needs in many areas.²¹

Nevertheless, a fundamental point is that we know enough to be sure that it is imperative to take transformative action. The outcomes of numerous national, regional and global assessments, along with advances in scientific understanding, are making it increasingly clear how urgent that need to take action is.²²

2.3 Role of Soil Organisms in SES Provision

The description of the fragile nature of soil given in the European Soil Charter spoke to the relevance of soil biology. It highlighted that “Soil is a limited resource which is easily destroyed”, and continued:

Soil is a thin layer covering part of the earth’s surface. Its use is limited by climate and topography. It forms slowly by physical, physico-chemical, and biological processes but it can be quickly destroyed by careless action. Its productive capacity can be improved by careful management over years or decades but once it is diminished or destroyed reconstitution of the soil may take centuries.

Between 1972 and the present day the role of soil and its biological aspects in the provision of ecosystem services has been increasingly acknowledged, with exponential interest in the last few years.²³

The Preamble to the Revised World Soil Charter 2015 recognises the significance of careful soil management to safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity. It states:

Soils are fundamental to life on Earth but human pressures on soil resources are reaching critical limits. Careful soil management is one essential element of sustainable agriculture and also provides a valuable lever for climate regulation and a pathway for safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity.

Principles 7 and 8 of the Revised Charter highlight the significance of soil biota:

7. The specific functions provided by a soil are governed, in large part, by the suite of chemical, biological, and physical properties present in that soil. Knowledge of the actual state of those properties, their role in soil functions, and the effect of change – both natural and human-induced—on them is essential to achieve sustainability.

8. Soils are a key reservoir of global biodiversity, which ranges from micro-organisms to flora and fauna. This biodiversity has a fundamental role in supporting soil functions and therefore ecosystem goods and services associated with soils. Therefore it is necessary to maintain soil biodiversity to safeguard these functions.

Our scientific knowledge concerning the existence, diversity and functional roles of soil organisms has increased manyfold. Still, our comprehension of them as principal actors in the ‘epic production’ of ‘Life on Earth’ is only in its infancy, and is possibly so overwhelming and awe-inspiring that the reality of this situation, and implications for our future, have not yet fully ‘landed’—even in the ‘science’ community, to say nothing of broader policy and civil society.

Soil biodiversity contributes to the provisioning of food, clean water, medicines,²⁴ and raw materials including fibres and timber; to soil formation, nutrient cycling, erosion prevention, regulation of water flows, water storage and flood management, carbon sequestration and storage and climate regulation, waste processing and detoxification of contaminants, genetic diversity, and regulation of pests and pathogens; as well as to spiritual experience and sense of place, recreation and mental and physical health, cultural heritage, knowledge and education, and aesthetic appreciation and inspiration for culture, art and design.²⁵ Below-ground biodiversity also represents one of the largest reservoirs of biodiversity on earth,²⁶ the vast majority of which has yet to be described.²⁷

3 Loss of Soil Biodiversity

3.1 What Is Soil Biodiversity?

We might begin by asking ourselves, ‘What is soil biodiversity?’ The response to this question usually relates the definition of biodiversity provided in CBD, Art 2, to soil, such that it encompasses

the variability of life belowground, from genes and species to the communities they form, as well as the ecological complexes to which they contribute and to which they belong, from soil-micro habitats to landscapes.²⁸

The term ‘soil biodiversity’ is also often used to refer to soil organisms more generally.

3.1.1 Categorising and Describing Soil Organisms

Soil organisms are often considered in terms of their ‘size’ class, usually measured by body width (not length), and some groups span different size classes (e.g. earthworms).²⁹ The main size classes are shown in Table 1 below, along with examples of relevant taxa, their location in the soil, and their activities.

Table 1

Showing main soil biodiversity size classes, taxa, location and activities, adapted from FAO et al. (2020), Box 2.2, p. 9 and supplemented from Orgiazzi et al. (2016), pp. 31, 107 (which acknowledge Swift et al. (1979) and Gilyarov (1949)) and Turbé et al. (2010), pp. 3–7

	Size (width)	Examples of taxa	Location	Activities
Microbes	20 nm–10 μm	Virus Bacteria Archaea Fungi	Mostly live in soil solutions in gravitational, capillary and hygroscopic soil water	Participating in decomposition of plant material, formation and decomposition of soil organic matter, nutrient cycling and chemical exchange, and weathering of soil minerals; some predation; water purification; bioremediating pollutants
Microfauna	10 μm–0.1 mm	Nematodes Tardigrades Protists
Mesofauna	0.1 mm–2 mm	Microarthropods including acari (mites) and collembola (springtails) Enchytraeids (potworms) Apterygota Small insect larvae	Mostly live in air-filled soil pore spaces	Forming microaggregates; increasing surface of active biochemical interactions; participating in formation and transformation of soil organic matter; some predation
Macrofauna	2–20 mm	Large soil invertebrates including earthworms, woodlice, ants, termites, beetles, arachnids, myriapods, gastropods, insect larvae		Variously, participating in transformation of litter, formation and transformation of soil organic matter, soil aggregate formation; predation; herbivory; ecosystem engineering, bioturbation, increasing water infiltration and influencing water distribution; influencing aeration and gaseous exchange; creating hotspots for microbial activity; bioremediating pollutants
Megafauna	>20 mm	Vertebrates e.g. moles, gophers, worm lizards		Creating spatial heterogeneity on soil surface and throughout soil profile through their movement; increasing water infiltration and influencing water distribution; influencing aeration and gaseous exchange

Different soil organisms will be found in different parts of the soil. For example micro-organisms are particularly abundant in the hot-spots of nutrients and other resources around plant roots (the area known as the rhizosphere, where roots exude ‘root exudates’), and in earthworm castings; aquatic micro-organisms (such as bacteria, nematodes, tardigrades and protists) inhabit the thin waterfilm around soil particles; mesofauna (such as springtails and mites) inhabit the air filled pore spaces; and macrofauna (such as earthworms) and megafauna (such as moles) may live throughout the soil. Some earthworms, for example, inhabit the litter layer, others travel horizontally through the upper soil layers, and deep burrowing earthworms can make their vertical burrows down to over 1m belowground and feed from the litter layer, although there may in some cases be less clear distinctions in these respects than previously thought.³⁰

Diversity and abundance of soil organisms is therefore influenced by the above and below ground environment in which they live.³¹ Below-ground this will depend on relationships between soil ‘type’;³² soil texture; soil structure; soil organic matter (SOM) content; soil air and moisture content; temperature; pH and a range of other factors, including C:N ratio; predation; species, structure, depth and characteristics of plant roots; frequency, intensity and extent of soil disturbance; application and incorporation of natural or synthetic materials—such as leaf litter, crop residues, manure, slurry, fertilizers, and other chemicals, spanning a range of natural and human induced conditions.

3.1.2 Further Notes on the Question ‘What Is Soil Biodiversity?’

For those interested in delving further, the simple question ‘What is soil biodiversity?’ unearths a multitude of more complex aspects one might consider. We might, for example question ‘What is soil?’, ‘What is diversity?’ and ‘How do these relate in a conservation context?’

For example, to what extent does the substrate on green roofs count as ‘soil’? Rare beetles and other faunistically interesting invertebrates have been identified on green roofs,³³ and a recent study has shown greater Shannon diversity on green roofs than at nearby ground level sites.³⁴ Is there a relevant gradient between technosols (anthropogenic/manmade) and natural soils? What about the accumulated matter under vegetation on green walls, or trees, which can be substantial? Decaëns et al. (2006) also raised the question, “Where does soil begin and end? What about vertebrate dung, decaying wood, rocks, hollow trees and other “epiphytic” soils…”, adopting a broad definition encompassing these.³⁵

There are also many different ways to consider and measure biodiversity. It is usually used in a taxonomic sense, to refer to the number of distinct species, but it can also refer to genetic, phenotypic, functional, structural or trophic diversity.³⁶ ‘Species diversity’ can relate to a local site (alpha diversity), to the differentiation between sites (beta diversity), and in terms of overall species diversity within a landscape (gamma diversity). There are also numerous different diversity indices, based single or groups of organisms. Along with taxonomic diversity, soil biodiversity is most often considered in terms of ‘functional’ or ‘trophic’ diversity.

Given the potential microscale of the soil habitat it may be difficult to decide when we are dealing with in situ or ex situ conservation. We might also consider whether it is the nature of the taxa that determines its inclusion, or its habitat? And what of the relevance of the increasing recognition of the importance of microbial ‘necromass’ which can result from very time-limited soil organisms (aka ‘sticky dead microbes’)³⁷? We might also ask to what extent the answers to these questions matter? Different answers could arise in different contexts. Orgiazzi has helpfully begun this conversation in a recent paper, and emphasises the significance for policy and regulation.³⁸ Anthony et al (2023) have also recently highlighted the challenges involved in enumerating soil biodiversity.³⁹ Still, for the most part at least, we know an earthworm when we see one, and must proceed accordingly.

3.2 Loss of Soil Biodiversity Highlighted in the Status of the World’s Soil Resources Report 2015

3.2.1 Loss of Soil Biodiversity Among ITPS Ten Soil Threats

The Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) and FAO produced the Status of the World’s Soil Resources Report 2015, to coincide with the United Nations International Year of Soils in 2015. The report discussed the global status and trends of the major soil processes threatening ecosystem services, and identified ten key threats including soil biodiversity loss. The other threats identified were soil erosion, soil organic carbon loss, soil contamination, soil acidification, soil salinization, soil surface effects, soil nutrient status, soil compaction and soil moisture conditions. These threats are interrelated, and can also feed into soil biodiversity loss.

The Report drew attention to a European study in 2013 by Gardi, Jeffery and Saltelli, based on a survey of 20 experts, which found that:

the main anthropogenic pressures on soil biodiversity were (in order of importance): (1) intensive human exploitation; (2) reduced soil organic matter; (3) habitat disturbance; (4) soil sealing; (5) soil pollution; (6) land-use change; (7) soil compaction; (8) soil erosion; (9) habitat fragmentation; (10) climate change; (11) invasive species; and (12) GMO pollution.⁴⁰

Many of the available studies of soil biodiversity have focused on soil biodiversity in an agricultural context, showing, for example, that agricultural intensification can reduce soil biodiversity, and lead to decreased food-web complexity and fewer functional groups.⁴¹ Such reductions in soil biodiversity can result from land use change and management practices, such as conversion of natural lands to agriculture, practice of monoculture, intensive tillage, use of heavy machinery, and chemical inputs. These alter the chemical, physical and biological properties of soils, and hence the availability and suitability of habitat and substrate for a diversity of soil organisms, and can cause disruption of the delicate balance between soil pests and their natural enemies. In conventional agricultural tillage systems, for example, organisms adapted to high levels of physical disturbance become dominant, thereby reducing species richness and diversity.⁴²

The consequences of anthropogenically induced global warming also has the potential to affect soil biodiversity. A global study of soil fungi in natural ecosystems found that distance from the equator and annual precipitation influenced fungal species richness,⁴³ and underscores the relevance of climate change to the provision of soil biodiversity mediated ecosystem services.⁴⁴

The outcome document of the recent Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity,⁴⁵ suggests that globally the most widespread threats to soil biodiversity are the loss of soil organic matter(SOM) and soil organic carbon (SOC), deforestation and agricultural intensification, and identifies the ‘main threats’ to soil biodiversity by ‘ecoregion’ as shown in Fig. 1 below. It can be seen that ‘deserts and dry shrublands’, ‘tropical and subtropical grasslands’ and ‘temperate broadleaf and mixed forests’ face multiple threats, though this does not necessarily relate to overall magnitude of threat, or of potential consequences. For example, the threats of climate change and SOM/SOC loss to the tundra ecoregion could have extremely significant effects on the global climate and overall biodiversity, resulting from positive feedback loops.

The threats to soil biodiversity are often interlinked, with, for example, many of the other nine SWSR identified threats feeding into loss of soil biodiversity. Likewise, threats identified (eg deforestation) can relate to broader threats (e.g. land use change), or can serve as an umbrella terminology (e.g. land degradation) for more specific types of threat, such as air, water and soil ‘pollution’, all of which must be addressed. Tibbett et al. (2020) provide a useful review of literature regarding potential threats to soil biodiversity, and compare the threats identified to research being undertaken, concluding that there is a disparity between research actions and perceived threats.⁴⁶

3.2.2 Effect of Loss of Soil Biodiversity on Ecosystem Services

Reductions in soil biodiversity have been shown to affect multiple ecosystem functions and services including decomposition, nutrient retention and nutrient cycling, erosion control, water management and food nutrition.⁴⁷ It has also been shown that where threats to soil biodiversity co-occur, there can be additive or synergistic effects, reducing soil biodiversity even further.⁴⁸

Most threats to soil biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services result from human activity associated with choice of land cover, land management and land-use change.⁴⁹ Land cover choices, such as monocultures, or non-native or inappropriate tree species, can negatively impact soil organisms and the ecosystem services associated with them, including natural pest and disease regulation and climate regulation through soil carbon storage and sequestration. Land management choices involving high input agriculture, the overuse of chemicals and fertilizers, high soil disturbance regimes, bare fallow, land clearance, overstocking livestock, removal of hedgerows, use of heavy machinery and working on wet soil, can all upset the delicate soil food web and result in negative consequences for ecosystem services.

Wolters (2001) has warned that “functionally important soil biota might be among the first to be affected by large-scale changes in land use”, and contends that loss of even ‘redundant’ species for a particular function could still have an effect on the function and services associated with it.⁵⁰ This is of particular importance given Wu et al. (2011)’s suggestion that endemism is prevalent in soil faunal communities.⁵¹ While many gaps in knowledge remain, it is generally presumed that increased diversity of soil systems increases resilience to perturbation since, if some elements are removed or compromised, others will be available to compensate.⁵²

Soil sealing provides an extreme example of land use change resulting in loss of soil biodiversity and impact on ecosystem services at multiple scales. Urbanisation, including soil sealing, and residential building and associated public infrastructure construction, affects the provision of ecosystem services at local, regional and potentially global scales. This occurs through direct and indirect consumption of agricultural, and natural land, and the associated urban resource demands, including building materials, that link to habitat loss all round the world.⁵³ Land consumption impacts the, now urban, soil directly by sealing, reducing the soils’ multifunctional ability to provide a range of ecosystem services to simply supporting infrastructure. It can affect the soil elsewhere, such as where displaced agriculture encroaches on forest or grassland soils, in the process also reducing their carbon storage and future sequestration potential, or resulting in more chemically intensive agriculture, elsewhere; and it can cause local and distant soil erosion resulting from poorly managed run off from sealed areas. Urbanization is also often accompanied by local soil pollution, for example from road, roof and driveway run off, from sports pitches, in the form of nutrient and herbicide leaching or other toxins from artificial pitches, and compaction of open areas that are used as pedestrian thoroughfares, or for car parking.

Consumption of land for urban development can impact hydrological cycles. Prevention of rainwater infiltration reduces groundwater filtering and replenishment, and unmitigated soil sealing channels stormwater at pace increasing the risk of local flash flooding and flooding further afield. Drainage and consumption of coastal wetlands can also reduce buffering capacity against storm surges, exacerbating the effects on remaining coastal wetlands and their above and below-ground biodiversity. Degradation of non-sealed soil resulting from urbanization, including poor soil management practice during construction, can also impact soils’ water storing capacity, with additional consequences for water management and soil biodiversity supported vegetation, and the related potential for associated ecosystem service provision of urban cooling though evapotranspiration, surface albedo and shading.⁵⁴

Biodiversity loss results from habitats consumed by urbanization, ecosystem fragmentation in the urban environment, and from losses of natural habitat elsewhere due to agricultural displacement. Urbanization involves changes in species abundance and community assemblages. Land use intensity generally correlates negatively with native species richness, and urbanization correlates positively with proportion of invasive species

There is a growing interest in urban soil ecosystem services,⁵⁵ including for urban agriculture and responses to disturbances and global change, and in the role soil biodiversity plays in the urban environment. Bray and colleagues (2019) for example, point to the high variability observed in microbial community composition between different urban soil fragments, and to recent work showing that increased microbial diversity is partly driven by soil invertebrate functional diversity.⁵⁶ They suggest that targeted approaches investigating invertebrate-microbe interactions may increase our ability to manage urban soil microbiomes and the ecosystem services they provide.⁵⁷

The encroachment of urban sprawl on both natural and prime agricultural lands, and the costs of infrastructure provision, can be reduced where local authorities impose stringent density requirements on new residential developments and prioritize infill sites, reuse of brownfield sites and rejuvenation and/or densification of existing schemes.

Local and regional authorities, in combination with water authorities, can minimize the environmental risks and impacts of urbanization by mandating or incentivising appropriate urban greening measures, such as installation of green roofs and walls, and can target subsidy schemes towards lower income areas,⁵⁸ to address social and environmental justice inequalities.

Soil biodiversity is relevant across all these issues: from protecting and nurturing well-functioning agricultural soil food webs for food provisioning; through the important role soil biodiversity plays in the health of urban vegetation and green spaces, and the ecosystem services that flow therefrom, not least in relation to water management, urban cooling and air quality; to the contribution of urban and surrounding green space as repositories of and habitat for conservation of common and rare soil organisms; as well as regulating the threats and risks arising from soil borne pathogens. Approaching these issues from the point of view of a global, national and local commitment to the conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity could provide additional policy drivers to support transformative action in relation to the challenges posed by urbanization.

3.2.3 Measuring and Monitoring Soil Biodiversity

It has been suggested that links between above and below-ground communities make it likely that factors affecting above-ground extinction may also be affecting soil organisms.⁵⁹ At the same time, while there are fundamental connections between above and below-ground biodiversity, levels of species richness and abundance above and below ground do not necessarily correlate, and protecting aboveground biodiversity may not sufficiently reduce threats to soil biodiversity. Managing soil biodiversity can implicate different hotspots and coldspots, and raise different challenges to aboveground biodiversity.⁶⁰

Guerra et al. (2021) have pointed out that we know little about the conservation status of most soil organisms, or about the effects of nature conservation policies on soil systems. As have others,⁶¹ they suggest that “[s]oil biodiversity and its ecosystem functions thus require explicit considerations when establishing nature protection priorities and policies and when designing new conservation areas.”⁶²

To inform such policy consideration, and the associated need for a holistic approach and standardised international monitoring system to track the state and dynamics of global soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning over time, the global Soil Biodiversity Observation Network—SoilBON—has been established under the umbrella of the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEOBON). This aims to use standard protocols to systematically assess soil biodiversity and soil ecosystem functions using observational data worldwide from protected and non-protected areas, to feed into decision and policy-making.⁶³ It will provide a global soil biodiversity and ecosystem function monitoring framework, to assess a suite of soil ecological indicators based on ‘essential biodiversity vairables’ (EBVs), that directly link to targets under the CBD, SDGs and Paris Agreement.⁶⁴

Soil BON will help to address the point made in SWSR 2015 that no benchmark values for soil biodiversity exist on a global scale, making it difficult “to quantify changes or future losses that may result from natural or anthropogenic-induced changes.”⁶⁵ In addition, the Soil BON Foodweb Team, focusing on soil fauna, has also been established (Potapov et al. 2022), and van den Hoogen et al. (2019) have documented global soil nematode abundance and functional group composition using over six thousand georeferenced samples, Phillips et al. (2019) have compiled a global dataset of earthworm communities from samples at nearly seven thousand sites,⁶⁶ and Lavelle et al. (2022) have carried out a world-wide assessment of soil macroinvertebrate communities from over three thousand five hundred sites, also contributing to global benchmarking.

A number of states, sub-national authorities and regions have collected and/or regularly collect soil biodiversity data,⁶⁷ such as for example the EU’s Land Use/Cover Area Frame Statistical Survey Soil (LUCAS Soil), which is an extensive and regular topsoil survey that is carried out across the European Union to derive policy-relevant statistics on the effect of land management on soil characteristics. From 2018 it added additional properties, including bulk density, soil biodiversity, and specific measurements for organic-rich soil and soil erosion. The soil biodiversity component is being further developed to harmonise with national soil biodiversity monitoring and provide indicators relevant to the European Green Deal and EU Soil Strategy for 2030.⁶⁸ The European Commission Proposal for a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilieance (Soil Monitoring Law) (EC 2023) (previously referred to as the proposed Soil Health Law)⁶⁹ makes reference to loss of soil biodiversity, but currently leaves soil descriptors for biodiversity optional (providing a few examples) beyond specifying ‘soil basal respiration’, which itself is arguably not a ‘diversity’ indicator at all. The text may change as the proposal progresses, and it may nevertheless stimulate national action, both within the EU and beyond.

And at a local, and farm-scale level, more use is being made of biological indicators of soil health, such as earthworm counts (for example as part of the new UK Soil Health Scorecard),⁷⁰ and the use of the QBS-ar (Soil Biological Quality index using microarthropods) is increasing.⁷¹ The Soil BON Foodweb Protocol and manuals have been published, and can be followed.⁷² The Global Soil Partnership (GSP) Soil Doctors farmer-to-farmer training programme Soil Testing Methods manual includes earthworm density as one of a few simple biological tests,⁷³ and the FAO Protocol for the Assessment of Sustainable Soil Management refers to extraction, counting and identifying soil meso and macrofauna, or genomic analysis for the microbial level, as indicators of soil biodiversity, to complement other soil biological measurement such as soil respiration.⁷⁴

Given the heterogeneity of soils and the extent of differing local circumstances, the topic of standard soil biological indicators has proved challenging. Tensions exist not least between the choice of use of expensive genetic sequencing equipment or more accessible and lower cost methods for standard indicators, and in relation to the organisms, communities or other proxies used. This lack of common agreement has hindered progress in securing soil commitments in global policy forums, including in the development of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (see Sect. 5.1.2.2 below), where policy-makers have been reluctant to set soil biodiversity targets in the absence of agreed standard indicators.⁷⁵

3.3 State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity: Status, Challenges and Potentialities, Report 2020

Over the past two decades, there has been a notable increase in interest in research and understanding of soil biodiversity. Milestone events outside the direct CBD context include a 2010 EC meeting on soil biodiversity and report for policy makers,⁷⁶ as well as publication of the European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity,⁷⁷ the establishment of the Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative (GSBI),⁷⁸ publication of the Status of the World’s Soil Resrouces Report 2015, and in 2016 of the Global Atlas of Soil Biodiversity.⁷⁹

As a result of significant growth in the methods and instrumentation available to study soil organisms, including computer aided tomography, and genetic sampling, there has also been an increasingly greater appreciation of the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil. This has brought a growing awareness of soils’ critical role as the dynamic interface between water, land and atmosphere, as the foundation for food, water and energy provision; and of soil biodiversity, soil health and the ecosystem services they provide being fundamental to the success of the objectives of multiple international policy frameworks.

This growing awareness and interest led the fourteenth CBD Conference of the Parties (CBD COP14) to invite FAO, in collaboration with other organizations, to consider the preparation of a report on the state of knowledge of soil biodiversity covering its status, challenges and potentialities.⁸⁰ The resulting report, produced together by the FAO, ITPS, GSBI, CBD and EC was launched in December 2020,⁸¹ to coincide with World Soil Day, held on 5 December each year.

That report provides a wealth of information on the current state of knowledge of soil biodiversity, and is an invaluable and timely resource. Following an introduction it contains chapters devoted to global diversity and distribution of soil biodiversity, contributions of soil biodiversity to ecosystem functions and services, threats to soil biodiversity—global and regional trends, responses and opportunities, state of soil biodiversity at national level, ending with conclusions and suggestions for the way forward. It also contains a useful annex of country responses to a soil biodiversity survey, which includes, often short, but nevertheless interesting, responses on the topic of ‘mainstreaming: policies, programmes, regulations and governmental frameworks’ provided by a variety of stakeholders.

3.4 Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity 2021 and Keep Soil Alive, Protect Soil Biodiversity: Outcome Document and Proceedings

The FAO, GSP, ITPS, CBD, UNCCD-SPI and GSBI together co-organized the Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity, which, after postponement due to the Covid19 pandemic, eventually took place virtually from 19–22 April 2021. It was attended by over 5000 participants, from more than 160 countries. Participants included representatives of FAO Members, organizing institutions, academia, research institutions, the private sector, civil society, farmers and land users working on soil biodiversity and related fields.⁸²

The Symposium was convened in anticipation of the adoption of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and in response to the “urgent need for a more integrated and coherent policy framework, where soil biodiversity protection is incorporated into other sectoral policies,” acknowledging the different components and challenges involved in managing soil biodiversity compared to aboveground biodiversity.⁸³

The overall aim of the symposium was to gather updated scientific knowledge on soil biodiversity, review the role of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services in tackling environmental problems and to drive actions towards the implementation of the Revised World Soil Charter 2015, the Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (VGSSM),⁸⁴ and the Protocol for the Assessment of Sustainable Soil Management.⁸⁵^,⁸⁶ It aimed to fill critical knowledge gaps, and to promote discussion among policy-makers, food producers, scientists, practitioners and other stakeholders on solutions to live in harmony with nature, and ultimately, achieve the SDGs through the conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity. More specifically, the symposium aimed to:

I.

Examine the current scientific, technical, indigenous and traditional knowledge on the role of soil biodiversity on food production, human health and on sustaining biodiversity aboveground.

II.

Identify knowledge gaps and explore opportunities for collaborative research, capacity building and technical cooperation.

III.

Identify limitations and opportunities to promote the sustainable use of soil biodiversity, knowledge sharing and capacity building.

IV.

Present effective and replicable methodologies, techniques, technologies and practices that promote sustainability, with a view to upscale those sustainable approaches to promote soil biodiversity conservation, the sustainable use of its resources and equitable participation in productive landscapes.

V.

Identify policy options to protect soil biodiversity and encourage the adoption of practices that enhance it.

VI.

Present national, regional and global initiatives that support the effective design, planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting of solutions and their contribution to the achievement of the SDGs.

VII.

Helping build a broader appreciation of soil biodiversity and our dependence on the many benefits it provides.⁸⁷

The Symposium Outcome Document, provides a summary of some of the main points raised during the Symposium. It also includes recommendations to support the development of policies and actions to encourage the full use of soil biodiversity. The Symposium outcomes were intended to contribute to advocating for the endorsement of the updated plan of action 2020-2030 for the implementation of the CBD cross-cutting International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity (see Sect. 4.2 below), and to the development of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.⁸⁸ The Symposium Proceedings, running to approximately 900 pages of topical soil biodiversity research and practice, have also been published.⁸⁹

4 The Relevance of Soil Biodiversity Within the CBD

4.1 Convention Text

The relevance of soil biodiversity to the CBD cannot be doubted. We may ask ourselves why it not been more prominent in Convention activity to date? More importantly, given the advances in scientific understanding, and what we now know about the critical importance of soil biodiversity to all aspects of ecosystem functioning, we must now ask what impact this should have in terms of Convention implementation in the future?

To situate soil biodiversity within the ‘letter’ of the Convention process, we can observe that ‘soil biodiversity’ is not mentioned expressly in the Convention text. Neither, however, are any other specific groups of biodiversity, so there is no surprise there. Article 1 sets out the objectives of the Convention, which are threefold:

the conservation of biological diversity

the sustainable use of its components and

the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

Article 2 defines ‘biological diversity’:

“Biological diversity” means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

Article 2 also provides the following definitions, which are particularly relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of soil and its biodiversity under the Convention:

“Biological resources” includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for humanity.

“Ecosystem” means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.

“Habitat” means the place or type of site where an organism or population naturally occurs.

“In-situ conditions” means conditions where genetic resources exist within ecosystems and natural habitats, and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties.

“In-situ conservation” means the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties.

“Sustainable use” means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations.

There are, therefore, a number of ways to consider soil and its biodiversity within the framework of the CBD.

First, ‘biodiversity’ includes ‘soil biodiversity’, and so soil biodiversity is already implicitly captured in the CBD and its mainstreaming agenda. The challenge remains to make it explicit, and of consequence in practice.

Second, ‘soil’ including and going beyond its biotic factors, forms a ‘habitat’ for soil biodiversity, and so for that reason also forms part of biodiversity.

Third, the diversity of ‘soil’ and the vegetation that relies upon it, form part of the ‘ecological complex’ upon which above ground biodiversity depends, and so again must be considered part of biodiversity.

Fourth, in many circumstances, ‘healthy soils’, which support effective soil functioning and soil processes, will generally support more diversity of species, and so promoting healthy soils provides a means of implementing the objective of the Convention.

In addition, the ecosystem approach, endorsed at COPV⁹⁰ provides for the integrated management of land, water and living resources, as the primary framework for action under the Convention.

Whichever way we look at it, there is scope for much more attention to be paid to soil and its biodiversity within the implementation of the Convention, through the cross-cutting International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity, mentioned below, and more generally.

Likewise, there is scope for much more attention to be paid to soil and its biodiversity when considering conservation and sustainable use of above-ground biodiversity.

4.2 Cross-Cutting International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity

Following on from earlier case studies of ‘soil-microorganisms in agriculture’,⁹¹ and the identification of components of agricultural biodiversity that provide ecological services, including a diverse range of organisms that contribute to nutrient cycling, decomposition of organic matter and maintenance of soil fertility; pest and disease regulation; pollination; maintenance and enhancement of local wildlife and habitats; maintenance of the hydrological cycle; erosion control; and climate regulation and carbon sequestration,⁹² the CBD cross-cutting International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity was established in 2002, within the Programme of Work on Agricultural Biological Diversity.⁹³ FAO and other relevant organizations were invited to facilitate and coordinate the Initiative.

A Framework for Action for the Initiative was endorsed by the COP in 2006.⁹⁴ This lays out strategic principles, including a ‘focus on integrated holistic solutions and technical adaptation to local contexts within a clear framework that builds on the principles for application of the ecosystem approach’ and developing partnerships and alliances that demonstrate multidisciplinarity and foster synergies and ensure multi-stakeholder participation. Implementation is to be appropriately linked to other thematic programmes, particularly on dry and sub-humid lands, mountain and forest biological diversity, and with relevant cross-cutting issues, particularly the Global Taxonomy Initiative and work on technology transfer and cooperation.

The Framework sets out three overall objectives relating to (1) the sharing of knowledge, information and awareness raising; (2) capacity building for the development and transfer of knowledge of soil biodiversity and ecosystem management into land use and soil management practices; and (3) strengthening collaboration among actors and institutions and mainstreaming soil biodiversity and biological management into agricultural and land management and rehabilitation programmes, to be achieved through a number of specific goals and activities.

Though the Framework is implemented through the agricultural biodiversity programme, the COP has noted that the conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity is an important issue beyond agricultural biodiversity and is relevant to most terrestrial ecosystems, and that soil biodiversity is impacted by human activities beyond agriculture as well as natural influences.⁹⁵ It has called upon Parties and other Governments to integrate soil biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into their national strategies and action plans and to put in place multisectoral programmes and initiatives for the conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity, at national and subnational levels. It has also invited Parties, other Governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and other interested stakeholders to support and, where appropriate, implement the Initiative and to supply further case-studies on soil biodiversity in order to further strengthen it, and urged Parties and relevant organizations to identify research activities to address knowledge gaps on soil biodiversity and their implications for land use practices.⁹⁶

Following on from previous review, COP 14 requested the CBD Executive Secretary to review the implementation of the Initiative, in consultation with FAO under the framework of the Global Soil Partnership (GSP) as well as other interested partners, and present an updated draft action plan for consideration by the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) prior to COP15.⁹⁷

The Executive Secretary’s resulting document⁹⁸ provided a review of the three objectives of the Initiative as well as an analysis of soil biodiversity in national reports and national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), highlighted the contributions of soil biodiversity to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and opportunities for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and included suggested recommendations and a draft Plan of Action (2020-2030) for the Initiative, which, as subsequently amended, was adopted in Decision COP15/28 at COP 15.⁹⁹

The Plan of Action (2020-2030) describes its purpose and objective as follows:

The purpose of this plan of action is to provide ways to encourage conservation, restoration and sustainable use of soil biodiversity and to support Parties, other Governments, subnational and local governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, relevant organizations and initiatives, in accelerating and upscaling efforts towards the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of soil biodiversity, and towards the assessment and monitoring at the corresponding level of soil organisms to promote their conservation, sustainable use and/or restoration, and to respond to challenges that threaten soil biodiversity.

…The overall objective of this plan of action is to mainstream soil biodiversity science, knowledge, and understanding into public policies, at all levels, and to foster coordinated action to invest in soil biodiversity assessments at the global level to safeguard and promote the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of soil biodiversity and its ecosystem functions and services, which are essential for sustaining life on Earth, while acknowledging that economic, environmental, cultural and social factors contribute to sustainable soil management, and to promote investment in soil biodiversity research, monitoring and assessment at the corresponding level. Achieving this objective will ensure that soil biodiversity recovers and continues to provide a full range of functions. It will also formally promote sustainable soil management practices, including artisanal forms of food production, which can enhance soil biodiversity while maintaining the productivity of managed ecosystems.

It comprises four main elements, the first of which is entitled ‘policy coherence and mainstreaming’, under which it lists 12 activities, the first three of which are:

1.1 Promote the importance of mainstreaming soil biodiversity, including the conservation, restoration, sustainable use and management of soil biodiversity into policies aimed at the sustainability of agriculture, and other relevant sectors and support the development and implementation of coherent and comprehensive policies for the conservation, sustainable use and restoration of soil biodiversity at the local, subnational, national, regional and global levels;

1.2 Foster activities to safeguard and promote the importance as well as the practical application of soil biodiversity, and integrate them into broader policy agendas for food security, ecosystem and landscape restoration, climate change adaptation and mitigation, urban planning and sustainable development, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, UNCCD 2018-2030 Strategic Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals;

1.3 Promote the implementation of good practices of sustainable soil management ¹⁰⁰ as a vehicle to promote integrated and holistic solutions that recognize the key role of above-ground/below-ground biodiversity interactions and of indigenous peoples and local communities and their traditional knowledge and practices, and that consider local contexts and integrated land-use planning, in a participatory manner.

Further activities listed include promotion of “integrated ecosystem approaches” and “policies that protect or help increase soil biodiversity”. Also included is the development of “policies and actions based on the recognition that soil biodiversity is central for sustaining all ecosystems and a key asset in restoring soil multi-functionality in degraded and degrading ecosystems”; the strengthening of “synergies between scientific evidence, conservation, restoration and sustainable practices, farmer-researcher community practices, agricultural advisory services and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities to better support policies and actions”; as well as addressing linkages between soil biodiversity and “human health, nutritious and healthy diets and pollutants exposure. Likewise, there is a focus on promoting “ways and means to overcome obstacles to the adoption of good practices in sustainable soil management associated with land tenure, the rights of users of land and water, in particular women, the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas” and “recognizing their important contributions through their knowledge and practices, gender equality, access to financial services, agricultural advisory services and educational programmes”. Attention is also drawn to the existing tools and guidance available to actors at all levels such as the FAO agroecology knowledge hub, the FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (VGSSM),¹⁰¹ the FAO’s Revised World Soil Charter,¹⁰² the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management,¹⁰³ the International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilizers;¹⁰⁴ and the Committee on World Food Security’s recently revised and reissued Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forest in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT).¹⁰⁵ The ‘policy coherence and mainstreaming’ activities list ends with “Encourage Parties to include soil biodiversity in national reports and national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and coordinate at the national and subnational levels, in order to increase and improve public and private actions that improve soil biodiversity”; and “Promote coordinated spatial planning and other approaches to reduce the loss of soil and soil biodiversity and implement adequate monitoring of soil sealing.”¹⁰⁶

These activities are what one might expect from a CBD Party’s concerted effort to implement the mainstreaming agenda of the CBD in any event, especially in the light of recent greater understanding of the critical role of soil biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystem function since the Convention was concluded. They are set against the background of a number of ‘global actions’ that have been identified as supporting the implementation of coherent and comprehensive policies for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of soil biodiversity at all levels. Among the ‘global actions’ to be considered by Parties is “Include soil biodiversity as an important component of soil description surveys using a large range of tools, including state-of-the-art methods and technology, and the development of bioindicators”.¹⁰⁷

Including one or a number of groups of soil organisms in soil description surveys as a matter of course by public and private actors at all levels would be an obvious, straightforward, important and (subject to relevant ability and expertise) achievable, first step. Efforts should be made now to ensure sufficient and appropriate training, expertise and facilities among soil stakeholders, including farmers, other professionals and researchers. Guerra et al. (2020) have drawn attention to the lack of globally distributed expertise, research funding and infrastructure for research on a macroecological scale.¹⁰⁸ Potential bottlenecks can be anticipated also at smaller scales, and at a local level, highlighting the need for investment in soil biodiversity capacity building.

FAO is invited to facilitate the implementation of the Plan of Action (2020-2030), which:

is intended to align activities on soil biodiversity more closely with other FAO-related activities including the International Network on Soil Biodiversity and the Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory, to monitor and forecast the conditions of soil biodiversity and soil health as well as with regional and country offices in order to create synergies and provide broader support. The full implementation of the plan of action at the national and subnational levels will depend on the availability of resources.¹⁰⁹

5 CBD Mainstreaming Agenda

5.1 Mainstreaming in Context

Section 4.2 above draws attention to the areas of focus on ‘soil biodiversity’ within the CBD framework. However, as also recognised above, ‘soil biodiversity’ forms part of ‘biodiversity’ more generally, so CBD objectives, strategies, programmes etc. inherently encompass soil biodiversity.

The CBD ‘mainstreaming’ agenda seeks to ensure that biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides are valued, and that this value and other biodiversity issues,¹¹⁰ are taken into account in policies and practices that depend and/or impact on it.¹¹¹

Mainstreaming and awareness raising go hand in hand, as it is difficult to value and take into account what you do not know. It is also difficult to conceive of any policy sphere that does not, in one way or another, depend and/or impact on biodiversity and its ecosystem services. Nevertheless, mainstreaming attention has been focused on those sectors that most obviously or directly depend and/or impact on biodiversity, namely agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing, and health. It is also now being focused on certain topics such as pollution and invasive species, and on certain mechanisms such as incentives and subsidies, as well as on the business, investment and finance sector more generally.

Valuing the important role in conserving and sustainably using the land, and the rights, including to fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, of indigenous peoples and local communities, and gender equality, are also fundamental aspects of the mainstreaming agenda.

In terms of ‘valuing’, one may consider the intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components.¹¹²

Biodiversity mainstreaming therefore, can take place in many contexts, and in many ways¹¹³. It is mandated, promoted and encouraged through the following CBD Convention articles (Table 2), and in Strategies (Table 3), thematic Programmes of Work and cross-cutting Issues and Initiatives, COP decisions and a proposed new long-term strategic approach to mainstreaming biodiversity (LTAM), described below.

Table 2

A selection of CBD articles particularly relevant to mainstreaming

Article	Convention Text
1 under Objectives	The objectives of this Convention… are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources…
6(b) under General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use	Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and capabilities: Integrate, as far as possible and appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies
7(c) under Identification and Monitoring	Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, in particular for the purposes of Articles 8 to 10: Identify processes and categories of activities which have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and monitor their effects through sampling and other techniques
8(l) under In-situ Conservation	Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: Where a significant adverse effect on biological diversity has been determined pursuant to Article 7, regulate or manage the relevant processes and categories of activities
10(a) under Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity	Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and appropriate: Integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources into national decision-making
10(c)	Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements
11 under Incentive Measures	Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, adopt economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity
14 (a) under Impact Assessment and Minimizing Adverse Impacts	Each Contracting Party, as far as possible and appropriate, shall: Introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of its proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and, where appropriate, allow for public participation in such procedures
14 (b)	Introduce appropriate arrangements to ensure that the environmental consequences of its programmes and policies that are likely to have significant adverse impacts on biological diversity are duly taken into account
20(1) under Financial Resources	Each Contracting Party undertakes to provide, in accordance with its capabilities, financial support and incentives in respect of those national activities which are intended to achieve the objectives of this Convention, in accordance with its national plans, priorities and programmes

Table 3

A selection of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 provisions particularly relevant to mainstreaming

Strategic Goal A (Aichi Targets 1-4)	Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society
1	… people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.
2	… biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.
3	… incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio economic conditions.
4	… Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.

5.1.1 Mainstreaming in CBD Convention Articles

The following are a selection of Convention articles with particular relevance to mainstreaming.

5.1.2 Mainstreaming in CBD Strategic Plans

5.1.2.1 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020

The CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020¹¹⁴ included Aichi Targets 1-4, which were expressly focused on the strategic goal (Goal A) of “address[ing] the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society”. Strategic Goal A and Targets 1-4 are set out in Table 3 below. Other Aichi targets focused on specific sectors (such as fisheries, agriculture, aquaculture and forestry) and issues (such as pollution, invasive species, ecosystem restoration, sustainable consumption and production and resource mobilization), which are the subject, object or means of implementing the mainstreaming agenda.

As is well known, there has been a failure to achieve any of the Aichi Targets, with only six of the twenty targets (not including 1–4) being partially achieved by the 2020 deadline.¹¹⁵

5.1.2.2 Post-2020, now Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

In CBD COP Decision 14/34, the Conference of the Parties set out the process for developing a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which has now been adopted pursuant to COP Decision 15/4 as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), as annexed to Decision 15/4, which also decided that the GBF "should be used as a strategic plan for the implementation for the Conention and its Protocols, its bodies and its Secretariat, over the period 2022-2030. Decision 15/4 notes that the implementation of the GBF is to be supported by other decisions adopted at COP15, including Decision 15/5 on the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Decision 15/6 on planning, monitoring, reporting and review, Decision 15/7 on resource mobilisation, Decision 15/8 on capacity-building and development and technical and scientific cooperation, Decision 15/9 on digital sequence information on genetic resources and Decision 15/13 on cooperation with other Conventions and international organizations. Decision 15/4 also requests the CBD Executive Secretary to conduct a strategic review and analysis of the Programmes of Work of the Convention in the context of the GBF to facilitate its implementation, and, on the basis of such analysis, to prepare draft updates of those Programmes of Work for consideration by the SBSTTA before COP16, and to report on this work to COP16.

The GBF “aims to catalyze, enable and galvanize urgent and transformative action by Governments, and subnational and local authorities, with the involvement of all of society, to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, to achieve the outcomes it sets out in its Vision, Mission, Goals and Targets,” and thereby contribute to the objectives of the Convention and its Protocols.¹¹⁶

The ‘2050 vision’ is a world of living in harmony with nature where: “by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”¹¹⁷ The mission for the period up to 2030, moving towards the 2050 vision, is: “To take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of people and planet by conserving and sustainably using biodiversity and by ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources, while providing the necessary means of implementation”. The Framework is to be “understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated consistent with a ... [w]hole-of-government and whole-of-society approach”, and notes that it’s success “requires political will and recognition at the highest level of government and relies on action and cooperation by all levels of government and by all actors of society”.¹¹⁸

The GBF sets out four long-term goals, A-D, related to the 2050 vision, and twenty-three global targets for 2030. 'Mainstreaming is highly relevant throughout the goals and targets,¹¹⁹ and is epressly referenced, in Target 12, and in the overarching heading for Targets 14-23. Target 12 addresses the need to "Significantly increase the area and quality, and connectivity of, access to, and benefits from green and blue spaces in urban and densely populated areas sustainably, by mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and ensure biodiversity-inclusive urban planning. Targets 14-23 are headed "Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming", and include Target 14 on full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies; Target 15 to encourage and enable business, and in particular large transnational companies and financial institutions, to monitor, assess and disclose their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity, including along their operations, supply and value chains, and portfolios; Target 16 on encouraging and enabling sustainable consumption choices and equitably reducing the global footprint of consumption; Target 17 on strengthening capacity for and implementation of biosafety measures; Target 18 on identifying, eliminating, phasing out or reforming harmful incentives, including subsidies; Target 19 on effectively mobilising financial resources from all sources; Target 20 on strengthening capacity building, transfer of technology and research; Target 21 on data, information and knowledge availability and sharing, and the strengthening of communication, awareness raising, education, monigoring, research and knowledge management, while ensuring that traditional knowledge, innovations, practices and technologies of indigenous peoples and local communities are only accessed with their free, prior and informed consent, in accordance with national legislation; Target 22 on ensuring the full, equitable, inclusie, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making, and access to justice and information related to biodiversity by indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting their cultures and rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge, as well as by women and girls, children and youth, and persons with disabilities and ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders; and Target 23 on ensuring gender equality in the implementation of the Framework, including by recognizing their equal rights and access to land and natural resources and their full, equitable, meaningful and informed participation and leadership at all levels of action, engagement, policy and decision-making related to biodiversity.

The importance of sustainable soil management is implicit throughout the goals and targets, and ‘soil health’ is explicitly mentioned in Target 11, which provides “Restore, maintainand enhance nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem functions and services, such as teh regulation of air, water and climate, soil health, pollination and reduction of disease risk, as well as protection from natural hazards and disasters, through nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches for the benefit of all people and nature”.¹²⁰ The GBF includes an important section on “Responsibility and transparency”, which refers to the need for national targets communicated in a standardized format as part of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, along with effective mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review, forming an agreed, synchronized and cyclical system,¹²¹ which itself aims for collaboration and enhanced synergies with other multilateral conventions and processes, including the SDGs.¹²² The GBF concludes with a section on “Communication, education, awareness and uptake”, which includes, as “essential” to effective implementation, key aspects of mainstreaming, including “Increasing awareness, understanding and appreciation of the knowledge systems, diverse values of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem functions and services and traditional knowledge and worldview of indigenous peoples and local communities as well as of biodiversity’s contribution to sustainable development” and “Integrating transformative education on biodiversity into formal, non-formal and informal educational programmes, promoting curriculum on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in educational institutions, and promoting knowledge, attitudes, values, behaviours and lifestyles that are consistent with living in harmony with nature.”¹²³

5.1.3 Mainstreaming in CBD Thematic Programmes of Work and Cross-Cutting Issues and Initiatives

The Thematic Programmes of Work established by the Conference of the Parties, “contain provisions closely related to the mainstreaming of biodiversity”, and work on specific Cross-cutting Issues addressing implementation of substantive provisions in Articles 6-20, and providing bridges and links between the thematic programmes, also “have direct relevance to mainstreaming”.¹²⁴ Likewise, cross-cutting Initiatives, such as the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity under the thematic Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity, as well as another on pollinators. also have provisions relating to mainstreaming, as mentioned above. The CBD COP has previously pointed out that the Thematic Programmes of work, and work on Cross-cutting Issues, together provide detailed guidance on implementation of the Strategic Plan, and are key tools to be considered in the updating of national biodiversity strategies and action plans.¹²⁵

5.1.4 Mainstreaming in CBD COP Decisions

Several CBD COP decisions have focused on mainstreaming. These include COP Decision X/2 to which the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 was annexed. The Decision highlighted that the Strategic Plan would be implemented primarily through activities at the national or sub-national level, and that NBSAPs are key instruments for translating the Strategic Plan to national circumstances, including through national targets, and integration of biodiversity across all sectors of government and society.

Against the background of the high-level ministerial Cancun Declaration on Mainstreaming the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity for Well-being,¹²⁶ the thirteenth CBD Conference of the Parties adopted COP Decisions XIII/1 and XIII/3. Decision XIII/1, on progress in the implementation of the Convention and the Strategic Plan, encourages parties to mainstream biodiversity targets into NBSAPs and policies of other sectors or processes when they are being reviewed, and to ensure that NBSAPs are adopted as policy instruments. Decision XIII/3, on strategic actions, provides sectoral and cross-sectoral approaches to mainstreaming biodiversity in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism sectors, including integrated landscape management and recognition and integration of traditional knowledge, customary sustainable use and diverse approaches undertaken by indigenous peoples and local communities in efforts to maintain genetic diversity and reduce habitat and biodiversity loss. It also highlights the need for enhanced monitoring of the use of natural resources, including soil, in all sectors. On agriculture, for example, it encourages Parties to: develop land use policy frameworks to promote sustainable increases in the productivity and diversification of production of existing agricultural land and rangeland while enhancing ecosystem services and functions, including pollination, pest control, water provision and erosion control, acknowledging the importance of agro-ecological approaches, diversification, ecological rotation, agroforestry, organic farming, and of pollinators, pest-control organisms and soil organisms that promote nutrient recycling, thereby reducing the need for or replacing chemical inputs; contribute to the integrated, efficient and sustainable management of energy, water and soil resources; and to use an appropriate mix of regulatory and incentive measures aligned with national biodiversity objectives, including the elimination, phasing out and reform of incentives harmful to biodiversity in order, inter alia, to reduce habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation and to increase the efficiency of use of water, fertilizer and pesticides and to avoid their inappropriate use.

At the fourteenth CBD Conference of the Parties, COP Decision 14/3 was adopted on mainstreaming biodiversity in the energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors. Notable features include the recognition of: opportunities to mainstream biodiversity in those sectors, including in relation to integrated spatial and strategic planning, project design, decision-making and economy-wide and sector-wide policies, including incentive measures; the critical role that multilateral development banks, insurance companies, the business sector, financial institutions and other sources of financial investment can play in mainstreaming environmental and social safeguards and best practices to avoid irreparable damage to biodiversity and ecological infrastructure; the existence of opportunities for the wider application of biodiversity-inclusive impact assessments and the integration of biodiversity considerations in feasibility studies and risk assessments and risk communication, in particular strategic environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes and the use of spatial planning at the national and regional levels, as well as adjusting regulatory frameworks to encourage the assessment and disclosure of financial risks from biodiversity loss related to investors and businesses.

The decision encourages Parties, and invites other Governments and relevant stakeholders, notably public and private entities engaged in the energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors to identify opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity; conserve, enhance and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services in upstream decisions on investments, through such available tools as strategic environmental assessments and integrated spatial planning, including the evaluation of alternatives to such investments; apply best practices on environmental impact assessments and biodiversity mainstreaming to decisions, including those of public and private financial institutions, related to the approval of projects and investments in these sectors; apply the mitigation hierarchy when planning and designing new projects and plans; review and update legal frameworks, policies and practices to promote the mainstreaming of biological diversity including through safeguard, monitoring and oversight measures, and promote the full and effective participation of relevant sectors, indigenous peoples and local communities, academia, women, youth and other relevant stakeholders, including in relation to free, prior and informed consent; provide, as appropriate, effective incentives and appropriate governance mechanisms that strengthen best practices and best available and innovative techniques; review and use existing tools to shift markets towards more sustainable consumption and production; and review and update legal frameworks, policies and practices, to foster the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in socio-economic and business policies and planning, including through incentives for best practices in supply chains, sustainable production and consumption and measures at the scale of sites or production plants, requiring reporting by businesses on biodiversity dependencies and impacts, strengthening voluntary disclosures, and adopting or updating laws on sustainable procurement, and similar policies to shift markets towards more sustainable products and technologies. It also invites intensification of work to improve the internalization by businesses of the importance and values of biodiversity; and develop and improve metrics, indicators, baselines and other tools to measure the biodiversity dependencies of businesses in these sectors and their impacts on biological diversity, in order to provide business managers and investors with trusted, credible and actionable information for improved decision-making and the promotion of environmental, social and governance investments.

COP Decision 14/4 was also adopted by the fourteenth Conference of the Parties, addressesing mainstreaming biodiversity in the health sector. Among its provisions, it invites “Parties and other Governments, and relevant organizations to further develop communication, education and public awareness tools on the importance for public health of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem-based approaches, with a view to mainstreaming biodiversity and developing biodiversity-inclusive One Health policies, plans and programmes, among other holistic approaches, in line with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, and encourages “Parties, and other Governments and relevant stakeholders, in accordance with their national capacities and circumstances, priorities and regulations ...[t]o provide, where appropriate, effective incentives to mainstream biodiversity in the health sector.¹²⁷

The CBD Secretariat has identified a non-exhaustive list of decisions and work streams with particular relevance to promoting mainstreaming, or providing tools for it: these include impact assessment (COP Decisions VIII/28 and 14/3), incentive measures (COP Decisions X/44, XI/30, XIII/3 and 14/22), business engagement (COP Decisions X/21, XI/7, XII/10 and XIII/3) and resource mobilisation (COP Decisions XIII/3 and 14/15), alongside the sectoral approaches to mainstreaming detailed in COP Decisions XIII/3, 14/3 and 14/4, mentioned above.¹²⁸

5.1.5 Long-Term Strategic Approach to Mainstreaming

CBD COP Decision 14/3 also provides for the establishment of a long-term strategic approach for mainstreaming biodiversity, and an Informal Advisory Group on Mainstreaming of Biodiversity (IAG), to advise, taking into account consultation with stakeholders, on the development of a proposal for a long-term approach to mainstreaming biodiversity, including ways to integrate mainstreaming into the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.¹²⁹^,¹³⁰

According to Annex I of Decision 14/3, the goal of the long-term strategic approach to mainstreaming should be to establish priorities for action, based on scientific evidence of likely impacts and benefits in accordance with national capacities and circumstances, and identify key actors and appropriate mechanisms to implement such action. It should first focus on implementation of previous COP Decisions relevant to mainstreaming, and furthermore facilitate assessment and monitoring of gaps and progress. The long-term strategic appoach should be kept under review by the Conference of the Parties, and be flexible enough to respond to relevant changes.¹³¹

In COP Decision 15/17, the Conference of the Parties welcomed the work of the IAG, which was reflected in the progress report of the Executive Secretary to the third meeting of the Subidiary Body on Implementation (SBI),¹³² and later submissions,¹³³ and requested Parties and other relevant stakeholders to submit their views on the 'draft long-term approach' (also referred to as 'draft LTAM') and an associated 'action plan', that resulted from the work of the IAG, and to identify ways forward to support implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It also requested the Executive Secretary to organize an open-ended online forum to facilitate further views on the relvant reports and submissions. In its decision, the Conference of the Parties emphasised "the importance of intensified mainstreaming actionto achieve the transformational change needed in order to attain the 2050 vision, while acknowledging the specific challenges faced by developing countries in supporting mainstreaming policies and the need for adequate means of implementation and enhanced international cooperation.¹³⁴

The draft LTAM presented to the third meeting of the SBI¹³⁵, as updated for inclusion in SBI Recommendation 3/15¹³⁶ identifies the three actor-oriented strategy areas and five headline actions, set out in Table 5 below.

Section III of the document presented at the third meeting of the SBI highlights that the financial sector has “unique leverage”, and also makes the point that

the long-term approach action plan proposes that each player prioritize those sectors with the highest impact and opportunity for progress in a given national or thematic context, as a precondition for more targeted, and hence likely more effective, mainstreaming action in the coming decade. Some of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework’s action targets, such as those on threats and people’s needs, can provide useful pointers for such a prioritization exercise at the national level. For instance, the references to agricultural and other managed ecosystems, to nature-based solutions contributing to clean water provision, or to the benefits of green spaces for health and well-being, especially for urban dwellers, provide useful entry points for mainstreaming action.¹³⁷

5.2 Reciprocal Mainstreaming

‘Reciprocal mainstreaming,’ or recognizing priorities at both local and national or global levels, is a critical approach to mainstreaming. As has been pointed out in the context of urban-rural linkages, a one-size-fits-all approach at the national level may not address the needs of local communities. “Solutions should start from the priorities, knowledge and experience of local and subnational actors and Indigenous Peoples.”¹³⁸

Being smaller and closer to the ground than national governments, local authorities may be able to transform their governance practices faster than national governments. It is also being recognised that “Subnational and local approaches to systemic transformative change are gaining increased attention as actors at these levels demonstrate the ability to manage complexity and to adapt quickly to changing conditions”. COP Decision 15/12 addressed engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to enhance implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, endorsed an updated Plan of Action on Subnational Governments, Cities and other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (2023-2030).¹³⁹

5.3 Sustainable Soil Management and Soil Biodiversity as Front and Centre of Terrestrial Biodiversity Mainstreaming

Looking from this perspective, one can see that the case for sustainable soil management ¹⁴⁰—understood in the broadest sense—and the concomitant protection of soil ecosystem services, ought clearly to be a cornerstone of national implementation of the CBD—and front and centre of mainstreaming for terrestrial biodiversity.

Implementation of the mainstreaming agenda of the CBD must incorporate mainstreaming of soil biodiversity. The International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity can today be seen as simply emphasising this, and providing a potential framework for action, alongside explaining why.

In many instances threats to terrestrial biodiversity and the impacts of drivers of terrestrial biodiversity loss may first be played out in the soil—with the consequences of land use change, soil sealing and intensive agricultural production producing their first casualties in the soil. As Guerra et al. (2019) suggest, soil organisms are like the ‘canaries in the coal mine’.¹⁴¹ And, it is becoming increasingly clear that the human species is also suffering from loss of soil biodiversity—and without transformative action, we can be expected to suffer more so in the future.

6 Topical Issues and Case Studies

In this section topical issues in relation to mainstreaming soil biodiversity, soil health and sustainable soil management are presented, using case studies drawn largely from the UK, along with comparative examples from Switzerland and India.

6.1 Citizens/Stakeholders: Raising Awareness, Monitoring and Education

On raising awareness, a recent Freedom of Information request by the Sustainable Soils Alliance (SSA) revealed that only a tiny proportion (0.41%) of England’s spending on environmental monitoring went to soil monitoring. SSA found that while £60.5 million was spent on water quality monitoring and £7.65 million on air, only £283,780 was spent on soil monitoring during 2017/18. The SSA Press Release, which received broad press coverage, stated: “This figure… reflects the widespread underinvestment in soil health compared to air and water, despite soil’s significant environmental importance—not least as a determinant of the health of these other two factors”.¹⁴² The Sustainable Soils Alliance has been actively raising the profile of soils in the UK since its launch in 2017.

Following on from its recent successful ‘Science Note on Soil Carbon’,¹⁴³ which was produced in both a short and detailed version, accessible to the public, policy makers and specialists alike, the British Society of Soil Science (BSSS) is currently working on a ‘Science Note on Soils and Biodiversity’.¹⁴⁴

The BSSS, the SSA and new initiatives, such as uksoils,¹⁴⁵ are becoming increasingly involved in education and awareness raising for soils. Launched on 4 December 2020 as a contribution to World Soil Day, uksoils is “an ambitious new initiative that aims to kickstart a nationwide appreciation and understanding of the economic, societal and ecological importance of soil health to support action and research… enable better access to robust, independent information, and provide a space for new proactive communities to share their knowledge and experiences of actions to improve soil health.”

It is notable that existing resources tend especially to be aimed at younger schoolchildren and current professionals. In the near term, further work needs to be done to embed soil literacy and the importance of soil biodiversity among new and existing, university and college undergraduates, postgraduates and researchers in all disciplines, who will become the professionals and policy makers during the current critical decade. This includes ensuring that both the physical and the academic learning environment demonstrate care for the value of soil and its biodiversity, and imbue an ‘intrinsic’ perspective.¹⁴⁶

6.2 Local Authorities and Partners: Parks and Open Spaces, the Pull of Pollinators and Construction Soils

Hågvar has pointed out that “Local authorities responsible for long-term area planning probably represent key bodies for preservation of soil biodiversity”.¹⁴⁷ The importance of subnationalgovernment for biodiversity is being increasingly acknowledged, as is evidenced in the decision on 'Engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to enhance implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework' adopted at COP15.¹⁴⁸

6.2.1 Cambridge: Parks and Open Spaces Biodiversity Toolkit and Happy Bee Street

In the UK, Cambridge City Council is one of a rising number of local authorities to have declared a “Biodiversity Emergency”.¹⁴⁹ In its management of parks and green spaces (including 12 local nature reserves, over 80 parks and recreation grounds, large commons, allotment sites, community gardens and orchards, burial grounds, and extensive green roadside planting) the Council is promoting measures to enhance biodiversity, including “the amazing soil ecosystem”.¹⁵⁰ Its Parks and Open Spaces Biodiversity Toolkit documents measures that are being taken by the City Council that encompass conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity, without expressly referring to ‘soil biodiversity’ as such. These include replacing formal annual bedding schemes that used intensively produced plants and bulbs, and were associated with the use of long-acting pesticides, with perennial flowering meadows, including native species, that are drought tolerant and require no or very little watering during establishment, reducing water being drawn from the chalk aquifer that supplies the City’s drinking water and local globally rare chalk streams.¹⁵¹ It also mentions that some areas of green spaces and verges that have traditionally been maintained by regular cutting by petrol driven lawnmowers and strimmers are being left as long grass to flower and provide food, cover and habitat for insects and other invertebrates and their predators. Since 2019, adopting a precautionary approach, short and long-acting herbicide use has been ceased in Council run parks and open spaces, except in exceptional circumstances (such as to treat Japanese Knotweed).¹⁵² Areas of brambles and nettles are being managed on rotation to support biodiversity, and Local Nature Reserve staff and volunteers are using traditional scythes instead of petrol strimmers to cut flower meadows. Tree stock is managed to ensure a diverse range of species and age groups, with deadwood retained standing where safe to do so, and where felling is necessary large sections are being retained as both natural play features, and as a habitat for fungi and beetles.¹⁵³ The Council has extended a trial of using no herbicides in all public areas, including streets and council estates, to four areas in the city, with the hope of extending it across the city in the future.¹⁵⁴ They have also set up a volunteer scheme in which residents can ‘adopt’ their street to improve biodiversity, including for herbicide free maintenance. To become a ‘Happy Bee Street’ the street must fulfil certain criteria, relating to safety, and if adopted participants will be expected to manage unwanted vegetation growth without using herbicides. In return the Council will stop spraying chemicals to control weeds in that street, and provide equipment to help remove and dispose of weeds; provide relevant health and safety training; specialist advice on biodiversity improvements and wildlife habitat creation; public liability insurance for the street’s ‘Happy Bee Street’ activities (subject to completion of a health and safety session); and a single point of contact and regular communications about the initiative.¹⁵⁵

6.2.2 Monmouthshire: ‘Nature Isn’t Neat’ Project and Training Manual

In support of their “legal obligations and duties as a public authority to manage the environment sustainably”,¹⁵⁶ Monmouthshire County Council have piloted, and since expanded, an alternative grassland cutting regime on verges, open spaces and parks to benefit pollinators, as part of its Nature Isn’t Neat project.¹⁵⁷ In their Nature Isn’t Neat Training Manual, they listed “increase habitat for pollinators – more food, shelter, hibernation sites and opportunities to reproduce to increase populations; connect isolated habitats allowing pollinators to move around, find resources and repopulate areas; [and] increase the source population of pollinators to spread into wider countryside and support food production; increase diversity of pollinator species”, as “primary objectives”.¹⁵⁸ The Training Manual, nevertheless, recognises expressly and implicitly soil related “complimentary co-benefits”, including “improve general health of other wildlife and the natural environment both above and below ground”; increase resilience of the natural environment to pests and diseases; increase resilience of the natural environment to drought and flooding; “open soil structure”, “no pan”, “more belowground activity”, and “improved root development and less soil compaction [which] improves resilience to drought and flooding”. The text is illustrated with diagrams showing increased numbers of soil organisms (represented by what appear to be earthworms), more extensive and deeper plant roots, increased carbon in vegetation and soil, and increased water infiltration, compared to business as usual. It also mentions the additional benefits to people of supporting farm yields, and improving absorption of pollutants, and the impact on mental and physical health. The Council point out that “[t]his is not a cost cutting exercise, we are working differently, not less”, and that “[t]here are lots of unseen benefits to people”.¹⁵⁹

6.2.3 The Pull of Pollinators

As is often the case, ‘pollinators’ provide the ‘pull’ and soil biodiversity comes along for the ride. This is the case not only for citizen, stakeholder and policy-maker engagement, but also in practice. Many pollinators, including ground nesting bees, are also soil dwelling creatures, during at least part of their life cycle. And pollinator dependent flowering plants (and their roots), making up 87% of flowering plant species,¹⁶⁰ are key to healthy soils, soil biodiversity and the provision of soil ecosystem services. In particular erosion prevention, flood prevention and maintenance of soil fertility rely on ground cover and on plants with extensive root systems, some of which will depend on pollinators. As Christmann (2019) has noted, many nitrogen fixing legumes and other soil fertility enhancing plants depend on specific wild bee pollinators, which can be ground dwelling. They also point out that while (invasive) pollinator-independent plants may be able to address soil erosion, or flood prevention to some extent, they aggravate the local lack of pollen and nectar, and pose a risk of exacerbating pollinator decline, and result in ‘pollinator-loss syndrome’ as a potential driver of global change. Christmann points to the lack so far, and importance going forward, of synergies between initiatives for pollinators and for soil biodiversity, including the importance of acknowledging ground dwelling pollinators as part of soil biodiversity. Orgiazzi and Panagos have suggested “Soil biodiversity and soil erosion. It is time to get married.”¹⁶¹ Let’s ensure that wild pollinators are at the wedding, and that they all remain life-long companions thereafter.

6.2.4 Cambridge and Peterborough: Developing with Nature Toolkit and Construction Soils

In contrast to the Nature Isn't Neat Training Manual described above, a Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority approved Developing with Nature Toolkit,¹⁶² although including many excellent and helpful recommendations - such as involvement of ecologists at an early stage in development planning, and a focus on important aspects of above-ground biodiversity and on green infrastructure - demonstrates a familiar lack of positive express attention to ‘soils’ or ‘soil biodiversity’. It does, though, mention the potential of nutrient poor soils for flower rich grasslands; and implicitly values soil in the context of the promotion of ‘green infrastructure’ and ‘biodiverse green roofs’, which, increasingly, may use local soil substrates. However, if the ecologists engaged are above-ground focused, and contractors, as is often the case, are not focused on handling soil in accordance with soil conservation and sustainable use, it is likely that soil and its biodiversity will be compromised, not to mention wasted.¹⁶³ The opportunity has, so far, been missed to refer to existing 2009 government guidance on soil handling in construction projects, the DEFRA Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites,¹⁶⁴ which seeks to support sustainable soil management, including for the benefit of “soil organisms”, “biodiversity” and “soil fauna”. ¹⁶⁵ The 2009 Code of Practice is currently subject to review,¹⁶⁶ and efforts are being made towards securing its update, and for more targeted activity on urban soils.¹⁶⁷ A first effort at guidelines on soils and EIA has recently been produced by IEMA.¹⁶⁸ For comparison, the presentation by Prof. Fabienne Faure Boivin, of the Haute école d’ingénierie et d’architecture de Fribourg at Eurosoil 2021,¹⁶⁹ provided a valuable example of mainstreaming sustainable soil management in the construction industry in Switzerland through the longstanding requirement for a pedological consultant for large projects,¹⁷⁰ as well as the provision of awareness raising across a range of stakeholders in relation to construction soils.¹⁷¹ While this has been reported to benefit soil physical and chemical properties,¹⁷² it can also be expected to have benefits for soil biological properties too.

6.3 Devolved Authorities and Subnational States: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Guidelines, Prime Farmland Protection, Sustainable Farming Incentive, State-Wide Organic and Other Forms of Sustainable Farming

Environmental protection and agriculture are devolved matters in the UK, and the approaches adopted by the devolved authorities illustrate differing ways in which soil biodiversity, soil health and sustainable soil management can be mainstreamed.

6.3.1 Scotland: SEA Soil Guidance and Soil Biodiversity

In Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Guidance on consideration of soil in Strategic Environmental Assessment,¹⁷³ expressly includes “changes in soil biodiversity”¹⁷⁴ among the processes that can result in damage to the wider environment, society and the economy. It highlights that soil biodiversity is essential to most soil functions, specifically referring to the fact that soil biodiversity affects the sustainability of species and habitats that rely on soil, and to the role soil organisms play in the carbon and nitrogen cycles and GHG exchanges, and in breaking down potential contaminants.

The Guidance identifies changes in land management practices affecting the structure, stability, biological, physical and chemical characteristics of soil as among the causes of changes in soil biodiversity, and lists the following as possible “typical effects of a [plan, programme or strategy] on soil biodiversity”:

Major positive ++ action very likely to lead to full conservation of current biodiversity status in most affected / vulnerable areas, particularly sensitive and designated areas; measures put in place to promote enhancement of soil biodiversity, especially in sensitive / designated areas.

Minor positive + action very likely to lead to some conservation of current biodiversity status in some areas

Minor negative – action very likely to lead to an overall moderate increase, or a series of smaller increases, to rates of loss of soil biodiversity in some areas.

Major negative - - action very likely to lead to an overall large increase, or a series of smaller increases, to rates of loss of soil biodiversity in large areas and is likely to affect sensitive and designated areas.¹⁷⁵

The Guidance does acknowledge that “Relatively little is known about the state and trend of Scotland’s soil biodiversity except for a few protected soil-dwelling species,”¹⁷⁶ and it is not known to what extent this aspect of the Guidance has been applied in practice. It is notable that later in the Guidance, under the SEA Headline Objective ‘To maintain or improve soil quality and prevent any further degradation of soils’, the sub-objectives given do not refer specifically to soil biodiversity. Nevertheless, the existence of the Guidelines, and the inclusion of express reference to “changes in soil biodiversity” among the “Existing environmental problems relating to soil, their potential causes and examples of likely significant effects”, and acknowledgment of its connection with species and habitats generally, is evidence of some express effort to mainstream soil quality and soil biodiversity, alongside biodiversity more generally, in Scottish environmental policy.

6.3.2 Wales: Prime Farmland Protection, ‘Very High Sensitivity’ Receptor And Global Responsibility

Laws can be enacted to protect prime farmland from soil sealing and development, as in Switzerland, where sufficient farmland to provide for national food security in an emergency has been protected.¹⁷⁷ In the UK, Wales goes further than other devolved nations in providing an example of how a devolved authority can make a difference in addressing local development threats to agricultural soils and the ecosystem services they provide, by strengthening protection for prime farmland from sealing and development, through actively prioritising ‘agricultural land use’ for the ‘best and most versatile land’ (BMV), according to the Agricultural Land Classification system, in national planning policy,¹⁷⁸ and adopting a broad range of agricultural land classification bands that are deemed to be receptors of ‘Very High Sensitivity’ for assessment purposes.¹⁷⁹ The Welsh Minister for Climate Change recently wrote to Chief Planning Officers emphasising that “in accordance with Welsh Government policy … where BMV land is identified within a proposed solar PV array development, considerable weight should be given to protecting such land from development, because of its special importance, and unless other significant material considerations indicate otherwise it will be necessary to refuse permission.”¹⁸⁰ Wales is also notable for its progressive Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act (2015), which includes ‘A Globally Responsible Wales’ among the country’s seven key ‘well-being goals’,¹⁸¹ promoting consideration of the implications of Welsh policies on global well-being, including, for example, the potential for loss of Welsh arable land to result in shifting production to ‘less environmentally sensitive systems’ overseas.¹⁸² The Act also provides for national indicators of progress, which include ‘concentration of carbon and organic matter in soil’.¹⁸³

6.3.3 England: Sustainable Farming Incentive and Soils Data as a Public Good

In England the Common Agricultural Policy is being replaced by the new Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs), incorporating the new Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), which aims to pay farmers public money for delivering environment and climate goods and services, including by encouraging actions that improve soil health.¹⁸⁴ This comes against the background of a Government pledge to manage soils sustainably by 2030,¹⁸⁵ as set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan,¹⁸⁶ which has, however, not fully been reflected in the followup Environmental Improvement Plan.¹⁸⁷ Under the SFI land managers will be paid to protect and restore soil health by carrying out SFI 'actions'. After discontinuing an initial pilot of an 'arable and horticultural soil standard' and an 'improved grassland standard', the 'soil actions' now rewarded under the Sustainable Farming Incentive, as of September 2023, are SAM1 Assess Soil, Produce a Soil Management Plan and Test Soil Organic Matter, which will provide £5.80 per hectare, and £95 per SFI agreement, per year; SAM 2 Multispecies Winter Cover Crop, which will provide £129 per hectare per year; and SAM3 Herbal Leys which will provide £382 per hectare. These SFI actions can be combined with other SFI actions and other environmental land management options including under an improved Countryside Stewardship scheme.¹⁸⁸ Take up, and impact on soils, remain to be seen. It is notable that, although they have since been replaced with 'soil actions', ‘soil standards’ were the first SFI measures to be introduced. An introduction to the current SFI soils actions states “The SFI actions for soils are focused on improving soil health, structure, organic matter and biology ... These actions can help with the long-term productivity and resilience of the soil to benefit food production. They can also provide environmental benefits, such as better water quality, improved climate resilience and increased biodiversity.”¹⁸⁹ Interestingly, the SFI Handbook makes it explicit that the data from the soil assessment and soil organic matter test results “is one of the public goods that this action is paying for and part of wider government measures in relation to our soils policy and strategy.”¹⁹⁰ Additional SFI actions relating to moorlands, hedgerows, integrated pest management, nutrient management, farmland wildlife, buffer strips and low impact grasslands are also available.¹⁹¹

6.3.4 Sikkim: 100% Organic Agriculture, and Wider Adoption of 'Natural' Farming

From a political commitment made in 2003, the Indian state Sikkim has successfully adopted organic farming as state policy across the entire state, with a view to preserving the state’s fragile ecosystem and the health of its citizens. Sikkim has phased out chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and implemented a total ban on sale and use of chemical pesticides, with the transition benefitting more than 66,000 farming families. Socio-economic objectives of the policy also include helping young people stay on the land, attracting local and foreign sustainable tourism, and taking advantage of premium organic markets.¹⁹²

In a 2021 horizon scan, Sutherland et al. (2021) highlighted that globally, uptake in sustainable farming is going through a step change increase.¹⁹³ They point to Sikkim and other entire states in India adopting forms of sustainable farming that promote the use of non-synthetic, locally sourced, inputs, which reduces costs while boosting yields and farmer health. Soil health and biodiversity can be expected to benefit too. States, such as Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, Maharashtra and Rajasthan have announced or are working towards statewide uptake of ‘natural’ farming. The horizon scan suggests that with policy support, such as the state-led programme of training, extension and social capital development in Andhra Pradesh, which has let to adoption by over a quarter of a million farmers to date, including many who have transitioned from high input farming practices, uptake could be rapid and could induce similar changes in other regions of the world. An impact assessment of the system in Andhra Pradesh addresses soil quality and reports that an overwhelming majority of the farmers have reported that “the quality of the soils and crops have improved” due to Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming (APCNF), and that “soil improvements are not just the farmers’ perceptions, they have manifested into higher and resilient crop yields and quality crop outputs which in turn resulted in higher gross and net returns”. The majority of farmers reported improvement in their own and their families health, and “in their financial position; their outlook towards agriculture and their happiness.”¹⁹⁴ In terms of soil quality farmers were questioned about whether they had noticed an increase in the ‘softening of the soil’, which was confirmed by almost all farmers in 2019–2020 (97%), up from 87% in 2018–2019, and also whether they had seen an increase in numbers of visible earthworms, which was the case for the great majority of farmers, although slightly fewer in 2019–2020 (80%) than in 2018–2019 (85%).¹⁹⁵

These examples demonstrate a range of actors, and contexts, in which soil biodiversity can be explicitly or implicitly mainstreamed, across urban and rural landscapes. They also emphasise the difference that individuals, who are willing to ‘propose’ and ‘do’ things ‘differently’ can make. Even small actions initiated by individuals will build upon, and stimulate, each other. This underscores the importance of soil biodiversity awareness raising among the next, imminent, cohort of policy makers and decision makers currently in tertiary education today. We need them to be ready and motivated to value soil biodiversity, and the ecosystem functions and services that depend on it, and to implement a transformative agenda across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

7 The Economics of Biodiversity and Nature-Based Financial Disclosure

Implementation of a transformative agenda includes, and requires, a supportive ‘economic’ system that is fit for purpose. CBD COP Decision X/2 invited Parties “to make use of the findings of the study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity¹⁹⁶ and other relevant studies, to make the case for investment for biodiversity and ecosystem services and to strengthen policy commitment to biodiversity at the highest level.”¹⁹⁷ More recently, work on the long-term strategic approach to mainstreaming, has noted that the financial sector has ‘unique leverage’ in mainstreaming biodiversity as all economic sectors rely on financial services.¹⁹⁸

If it still needed saying,¹⁹⁹ the recent Dasgupta Review of the Economics of Biodiversity has highlighted that ‘economics’ is ‘embedded within’ and dependent on nature.²⁰⁰ Measures of economics and cost-effectiveness cannot be considered independently of, but must be nested within, the natural resource base upon which all of humanity relies. ‘Flows’ of ecosystem services are dependent on ‘stocks’ of ‘natural capital’, including healthy soils. Dasgupta, along with others,²⁰¹ calls for transformative changes in our understanding and accounting of ‘wealth’. He acknowledges the significance of ‘planetary boundaries’, as indications of safe operating spaces for humanity, and draws attention to the fact that planetary boundaries in relation to N and P cycles, and biodiversity are already exceeded.²⁰²

The Dasgupta Review highlights three properties of nature that make the economics of nature a challenge: ‘mobile’, ‘silent’ and ‘invisible’, and points out that “The soils are a seat of a bewildering number of processes with all three attributes.”²⁰³ ‘Soil’ is mentioned 84 times throughout the Review. The Review also devotes a box to ‘The Soils (which makes frequent mention of soil biodiversity)’²⁰⁴ and another to ‘Soil Biodiversity Loss’,²⁰⁵ the text of which is reproduced below, which alludes to the links between soil biodiversity loss and soil erosion, and highlights the negative impacts of agrochemicals on soil biodiversity and biological processes occurring in soil. Peatlands also feature prominently in the Review. While there is a slight sense of disconnectedness in the soil narrative throughout the Review, there can be no doubt that the intention is to highlight, and showcase, the essential need to take soil and its biodiversity into account in economic decision-making to ensure a sustainable future for a growing global population (Fig. 2).

Over the past two decades there has been a steady trickle of corporate social responsibility (CSR)/environmental, social, governance (ESG) and investment guidance and standards, which have incorporated biodiversity concerns to a greater or lesser degree. The trickle is turning into a stream, ²⁰⁶ with associated literature. Some use soil degradation, and related issues such as overfertilization, chemical inputs and land/soil restoration as ‘case’ or ‘use’ studies.²⁰⁷ The relevance of soil biodiversity is not always made explicit, but is key.

The recent Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) has taken inspiration, and aims to build on, the success of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The TCFD and TNFD provide opportunities to mainstream soil health and the soil ecosystem services that flow from healthy biodiverse soils.

The TCFD has contributed to increasing board level engagement with concerns around sustainable soil management in the context of the climate agenda, referring to opportunities for ‘carbon savings’, that which ought, for transparency, to be classed as either ‘avoided emissions’ or ‘carbon sequestration’,²⁰⁸ and which may often be overstated, and to the often under acknowledeged risks to business resulting from climate related, or exacerbated, land degradation.

The more recent TNFD initiative ²⁰⁹ provides further opportunity to focus on the importance of soil and its biodiversity for all its contributions to people, including ‘ecosystem services’.

The TNFD is a market led initiative, with a Taskforce made up of representatives of financial institutions, corporates and market service providers, led by Co-chairs, Elizabeth Maruma Mrema and David Craig. Its mission has been “To develop and deliver a risk management and disclosure framework for organisations to report and act on evolving nature-related risks, with the ultimate aim of supporting a shift in global financial flows away from nature-negative outcomes and toward nature-positive outcomes.” ²¹⁰ In doing so, it aims to maximise consistency with the TCFD to enable integrated disclosures, and to align with the work of the new International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and other standard setters, and to contribute to implementation of the CBD Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 15 (see Table 4 above).

Table 4

Targets 14 and 15 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)—included under ‘Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming’

Target 14

Ensure the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development processes, poverty eradication strategies, strategic environmental assessments, environmental impact assessments and, as appropriate, national accounting, within and across all levels of government and across all sectors, in particular those with significant impacts on biodiversity, progressively aligning all relevant public and private activities, and fiscal and financial flows with the goals and targets of this framework.

Target 15

Take legal, administrative or policy measures to encourage and enable business, and in particular to ensure that large and transnational companies and financial institutions:

(a) Regularly monitor, assess and transparently disclose their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity, including with requirements for all large as well as transnational companies and financial institutions along their operations, supply and value chains, and portfolios;

(b) Provide information needed to consumers to promote sustainable consumption patterns;

(c) Report on compliance with access and benefit-sharing regulations and measures, as applicable; in order to progressively reduce negative impacts on biodiversity, increase positive impacts, reduce biodiversity-related risks to business and financial institutions, and promote actions to ensure sustainable patterns of production.

Table 5

Draft Long-Term Strategic Approach to Mainstreaming (LTAM) strategy areas and global action areasheadline actions

Strategy area I: Mainstreaming biodiversity across government and its policies

Headline Action 1: Fully integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values^a into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts,^b integrating spatial planning and applying the principles of the ecosystem approach.^c

Headline Action 2. Mainstream biodiversity in fiscal, budgetary and financial instruments, in particular by eliminating, phasing out and/or reforming incentives, including subsidies harmful to biodiversity in key economic sectors, by applying innovative technologies, and by developing and applying positive incentives for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national priorities and socioeconomic conditions.

Strategy area II: Integrate nature and biodiversity into business models, operations and practices of key economic sectors, including the financial sector

Headline Action 3: Businesses in relevant economic sectors and at micro, small, and medium levels, and especially large and transnational companies, and those with the most significant impacts on biodiversity, actively transition towards sustainable and fair technologies and practices, including along their supply, trade and value chains, demonstrating decreasing negative and increasingly positive impacts on ecosystems and their services to people, biodiversity and human well-being and health, in a manner consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other international obligations.

Headline Action 4: Financial institutions at all levels apply biodiversity risk and impact assessment policies and processes, having developed tools for biodiversity financing to demonstrate decreasing negative impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity in their portfolios and increasing amounts of dedicated finance, to support sustainable business models and foster the conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity.

Strategy area III: Mainstreaming biodiversity across society

Headline Action 5: People everywhere have relevant information, awareness and capacities for sustainable development and lifestyles that are in harmony with nature, reflecting the multi-faceted values^d of biological diversity and its components,^e and their central role in people’s lives and livelihoods, and take gender-specific measurable steps towards sustainable consumption and lifestyles, taking into account individual and national socioeconomic conditions.

^aSee decision X/3, para. 9(b)(ii): the intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components

^bSustainable Development Goal 15.9, with an updated timeline (2030 instead of 2020)

^cSee decision V/6. See also https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/ (Last access: 22 June 2022)

^dThe intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components; see decision X/3, para. 9(b)(ii)

^eSustainable Development Goal 12.8, with amendment to reflect the role of biodiversity values and actions taken

Following a series of pilots, the final Recommendations of the TNFD were published in September 2023. The Executive Summary emphasises that "Nature is no longer a corporate social responsibility issue, but a core and strategic risk management issue alongside climate change. It needs to be brought into the strategy, risk management and capital allocation decisions of business and finance, fully integrating climate and nature considerations”,²¹¹ and points out that "the degradation of land and soil been found to adversely impact the market value of companies and increase credit risk to associated lenders.”²¹² 'Nature-related physical risks' are defined in the Recommendations as "risks resulting from the degradation of nature (such as changes in ecosystem equilibria, including soil quality and species composition) and consequential loss of ecosystem services that economic activity depends upon”.²¹³ The TNFD Recommendations include disclosures relating to (1) governance, (2) strategy, (3) risk management and (4) metrics and targets,²¹⁴ and the associated Guidance gave several examples of soil related scenarios including relating to the impact of soil pollutants, and the nature-related dependence on soil quality and soil retention services.²¹⁵ The TNFD Recommendations also include 'total pollutants released to soil split by type' among its core disclosure indicators.²¹⁶

Although a clear and highly significant step forward, disclosure requirements, especially if voluntary, will not alone result in the transformative changes that are needed, and must be backed up by strong law and policy, and ambitious targets, to support investors, businesses,²¹⁷ consumers and others in making nature positive choices.

8 Moving Forward

8.1 Soil Biodiversity Perception Checklist

For biodiversity mainstreaming, across all sectors and all stakeholders, dependencies and impacts on soil biodiversity need to be brought to the fore, encompassing the local, regional and global implications of decision-making. This following Soil Biodiversity Perception Checklist, developed by the author, is intended to assist with that process, by providing a structured set of questions to consider the relevance of soil biodiversity to particular land uses or activities, with a view to enabling more informed choices when decision-making. The basic framework may be useful for both practical and strategic decision-making purposes, for use by a range of actors in a range of circumstances, including for example, regarding land use and management choices, development of policy and regulation, and in relation to procurement and investment.

Box 1 Soil Biodiversity Perception Checklist

Soil Biodiversity Perception Checklist*

Site Specific Soil Biodiversity

1a How is soil biodiversity helping the visible land use or activity on this site?
1b How can soil biodiversity be more effectively harnessed to help the visible land use or activity on this site?

2a How is soil biodiversity helping the invisible land uses on this site?
2b How can soil biodiversity be more effectively harnessed help the invisible land uses on this site?

Neighbouring Soil Biodiversity in the Neighbouring Landscape and Seascape

3a How are any negative spillover impacts of this site land use or activity being dealt with by neighbouring soil biodiversity in the neighbouring landscape and seascape?
3b How can we minimize spillover impacts on neighbouring soil biodiversity?
3c How can neighbouring soil biodiversity be more effectively harnessed to help deal with spillover impacts from use of this site?

4a How is neighbouring soil biodiversity providing additional resources and services to the visible land use or activity at this site?
4b How is neighbouring soil biodiversity providing additional resources and services to the invisible land uses at this site?
4c How can neighbouring soil biodiversity be more effectively harnessed to help deal with the spillover impacts from use of this site?

Global Soil Biodiversity in the Global Landscape and Seascape

5a How is global soil biodiversity providing resources and services to the visible land use or activity at this site?

6a How is global soil biodiversity compensating for/dealing with the impacts of land use or activity at this site?
6b How can we more effectively harness global soil biodiversity to compensate for/deal with the impacts of land use at this site, while respecting land workers’ rights, and the rights of subsistence farmers, women and youth, and indigenous peoples and local communities.²¹⁸

*‘Soil biodiversity’ is here being used loosely to refer to ‘soil organisms’ as well as to their ‘diversity’.

‘Soil health’ or ‘soil ecosystem services’ could be added to or substituted for ‘soil biodiversity’ in all these questions. The answers may not be very different!

This checklist reveals that part of the problem with ‘visibility’ and perception stems not just from the ‘invisibility’ of soil and its biodiversity, but also from current ‘land use’ labelling. While labels may helpfully serve to identify the current ‘intended purpose’ and/or 'categorisation' of a site, they can obscure the fact that such 'categorisation', or ‘intended’ land use or activity, is not the only ‘use’ that the land on that site may have—in practice and in theory.²¹⁹ The 'land and soil' on the site is performing—or at least capable of performing—multiple functions or 'uses' at the same time. They may not all be of direct monetary benefit to the site owner/manager, but they may be of enormous value to society.

In addition to the questions in the checklist, one might also look in the other direction, asking ‘What might our on-site soil biodiversity contribute to providing resources and services to neighbouring areas and globally?’

The checklist is not only for use by landowners/managers. Anyone can use the checklist to consider a land use, activity, or policy, and make the choice to take action—practical, strategic or regulatory—that incorporates consideration of soil biodiversity, soil health and soil ecosystem services in a meaningful, and equitable, way.

8.2 Links with Other Regimes and Synergies

Soil biodiversity is increasingly being seen, in academic²²⁰ and policy circles,²²¹ not only as a component of biodiversity overall, but as being at the heart of solutions to pressing global challenges.

The Plan of action (2020–2030) for the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity explicitly seeks to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals,²²² in particular Goals 2, 3, 6, 13, 14 and 15, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,²²³ the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity, the FAO Strategy on Mainstreaming Biodiversity across Agricultural Sectors,²²⁴ the 2018–2030 Strategic Framework under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)²²⁵ and land degradation neutrality targets and objectives, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change²²⁶ and the Paris Agreement,²²⁷ and the objectives, commitments and initiatives under other conventions and multilateral environmental agreements, including the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal,²²⁸ the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade²²⁹ and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,²³⁰ and the Minamata Convention on Mercury,²³¹ as well as the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration,²³² and the United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019–2028, to achieve multiple co-benefits of soil biodiversity processes for improved and more sustainable land-use practices.²³³

Mainstreaming of soil biodiversity in the context of broader CBD approaches to mainstreaming, and through soil biodiversity specific initiatives, deserves greater attention throughout all sectors and at all levels.

As Bach et al. (2020) have emphasized:

The ways in which soil biodiversity interfaces with multiple ecosystem functions makes it a natural focus for advancing a holistic global sustainability agenda. Soil biodiversity is at the heart of natural solutions for climate, biodiversity, and humanity, including protecting natural areas, restoring degraded ecosystems, employing sustainable agricultural practices, and adapting urban areas for nature and people. As we work toward a sustainable future, let us not overlook the critical and diverse asset, right beneath our feet.²³⁴

9 Conclusion

Human and other species rely on soil and soil multifunctionality for the fundamentals of life—food, water, shelter, energy, disaster risk reduction (e.g. flooding, drought, landslides, wildfires), medicines, a habitable climate and recreation. Healthy soil, and the soil ecosystems services upon which we depend, in turn, depends on soil biodiversity.

Soil biodiversity must be brought centre stage, into the limelight, and its critical role acknowledged and valued. This requires inclusion of actions to mainstream soil biodiversity in NBSAPs, as well as action by actors at all levels of society.

This requires not only education at a young age and training of professionals. It requires that every university and college undergraduate, researcher and staff member be cognizant of the importance of sustainable soil management. An awareness of soil as ‘habitat for’ and ‘being comprised of’ soil organisms and soil biodiversity will help to instil a greater understanding of why to, as well as desire to, care for soil.

It requires that every land use, management and investment decision considers the ecosystem services that are and that could be provided by soil and its biodiversity. It also requires recognition that we are impacted not only by the use and management of land and soil in our own neighbourhood, but also by the use and management of land and soil elsewhere, including across borders.

It requires coherence and cooperation at a global level, through practical initiatives such as Soil BON, Soil BON Foodweb, and other activities organised under the auspices of the GSBI and GSP. It also requires collaboration and coordination of policy and activities pursuant to international treaties, alongside the CBD, including the UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, UNCCD, and waste and chemicals conventions.

It requires legislative and other regulatory support, including action at the regional, national and municipal level, such as adoption and full implementation of the proposed EU Soil Monitoring Law,²³⁵ and other national or regional equivalents, domestically and in relation to operations beyond national borders.

It also requires ‘doing things differently’ at all levels: taking the initiative, and managing expectations, by explaining why the grass is being left a bit longer, or why the soil on a development site should be treated with care, why following agroecological principles makes economic sense; and why, in making land use and management choices, ‘undisturbed’ land is important.

It requires recognizing and promoting ‘natural’ solutions to contribute to supporting food security for subsistence farmers, and in the actions of larger operations. It requires globally and individually facing up to the need to transition towards a more plant-based diet. ²³⁶

It means paying attention to and respecting the sustainable traditions and knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities regarding sustainable land stewardship. And recognising not only the rights, but also the responsibilities, of sovereignty, and the common concern of all States regarding sustainable soil management, which is a vital component of climate mitigation and adaptation and the conservation of soil biodiversity, throughout the world.

Soil biodiversity has, to date, received limited attention in the implementation of the CBD mainstreaming agenda. This must change. The CBD International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity has existed for twenty years, providing a framework and now an updated plan of action 2020–2030 for mainstreaming soil biodiversity. This Initiative is additional to the underlying Convention obligations to include soil biodiversity in the CBD mainstreaming agenda. It provides guidance to Parties in implementing Convention obligations and provides a framework for others to take steps for the conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity.

To this end, CBD Parties should include commitments and actions for conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity expressly in their NBSAPs. Despite any uncertainty over what ‘counts’ as soil biodiversity, and challenges involved in agreeing standard soil biological indicators, Parties can still take steps towards safeguarding soil biodiversity, by, for example, using available methodologies to begin establishing baselines for soil biological activity and diversity. Where relevant measures are already being taken, for the benefit of pollinators, or above-ground biodiversity, for example, additional justifications, relating to soil biodiversity, may be appropriate.

Where the physical and chemical aspects of soils are being taken into account, effort should be made also to require, or make express reference to, soil biodiversity.²³⁷ Where soil, its biodiversity, and associated ecosystem services, are overlooked in relation to above-ground biodiversity concerns, efforts should be made to include them.

The variability in soil types and soil biodiversity communities, in combination with land use, and local climate, means that more local, site specific, understanding and expertise is required. We need to create conditions that facilitate increased international partnership, and participation of local actors, including in SoilBON, and to increase local knowledge, training and expertise, in local soils and in soil biodiversity, including identification and taxonomy.

Government, industry and the business community cannot seek to sidestep responsibility by focusing on individuals’ responsibility to drive change through their personal decisions regarding consumption.

Nevertheless, change can only come about through individuals. Meaningful change relies on individual decision making. Institutions, governments, companies and other organizations, are comprised of individuals. It is the individual and collective decisions of the individuals within those organisations that drive the larger and smaller transformative changes that must happen. The Soil Biodiversity Perception Checklist is intended to help identify opportunities for improved and transformative decision making. This includes in the context of investments.

This chapter has shown that there are more potential policy and legal drivers than may be being used to protect and enhance soil ecosystem services. It hopefully provides a springboard for ‘soils people’ to make more use of the broader ‘biodiversity mainstreaming’ agenda; and for ‘above-ground biodiversity people’ to embrace the importance and value of soil and its biodiversity for achieving their objectives; and for all policy makers and wider societal actors to take more account of biodiversity mainstreaming and soil biodiversity in their decision making.

Building on earlier contributions,²³⁸ this chapter is intended as an opening for further future conversations regarding soil biodiversity… . There are many matters not touched on here, including the important Protocols to the Convention,²³⁹ and, for example, the significance of peatlands, forests, links with human health,²⁴⁰ war, and microplastics—as well as practical issues to be dealt with, not least the funding gap, increasing interdisciplinarity, harmonising terminology, and upskilling land and food numeracy²⁴¹—and important activities, such as the recently established International Network on Soil Biodiversity (NETSOB)²⁴² and launch of the Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory (GLOSOB)²⁴³ yet to be addressed, each of which, along with other topics raised in this chapter, could merit a chapter in their own right.

It is hoped that in terms of increasing the visibility of soil biodiversity, and situating it more squarely in the CBD’s mainstreaming agenda, this chapter provides food for thought. So, whether it be in the board room, in national and local government offices, in priority setting activities of international, regional and local initiatives, in devising sustainability strategies, in compiling investment reports, in calculating local and global impacts and dependences on nature, as well as in the dining area …

‘Let’s bring soil, and its biodiversity, to the table!’

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Frederic Perron-Welch for initial discussions, Jasmine Kabuya Racine for feedback on an earlier draft of this chapter, Fabiano de Andrade Correa for comments on review. Warmest thanks are also extended to past and present Fellows, staff and students of Magdalene College, Cambridge for their kind support of the author's practical and research-related soils activities, including the writing of this chapter.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Vorheriges Kapitel UNFCCC CoP26: Key Outcomes for Soil Management

Nächstes Kapitel Soil Protection Law in Japan

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992).

Decaëns et al. (2006).

Anthony et al. (2023).

Ritz (2014), pp. 379–380.

Ritz (2014), p. 380.

FAO and ITPS (2015).

MAB (2005), pp. v–vi.

Lilburne et al. (2020), p. 2; TNFD (2022).

Díaz et al. (2018). See further on the relationship between ES and NCP Kadykalo et al. (2019), and on soils specifically Smith et al. (2021).

FAO et al. (2020), p. 118, Table 3.1.

Adhikari and Hartemink (2016), Baveye et al. (2016).

Lilburne et al. (2020).

Daily et al. (1997), Chapter 7.

Daily et al. (1997), p. 128.

Dominati et al. (2010), Dominati et al. (2014), Pascual et al. (2015); Jónsson and Davíðsdóttir (2016), Pereira et al. (2018), Plaas et al. (2019).

FAO et al. (2020), pp. 182–189, Dasgupta (2021), e.g. Chapter 2, Box 2.5, Chapter 4, Boxes 4.3 and 4.7, and pp. 314, 318–321.

Adhikari and Hartemink (2016), p. 103.

Daily et al. (1997), p. 126.

European Soil Charter 1972.

FAO et al. (2020), FAO (2021a).

FAO and ITPS (2015), IPBES (2018, 2019), IPCC (2019), FAO (2020a), IPCC (2021).

Kibblewhite et al. (2008), Powlson et al. (2011), Wall et al. (2012), Adhikari and Hartemink (2016), FAO (2020a), Smith et al. (2021), FAO (2021a).

Beach et al. (2019), p. 141.

FAO (2020a), pp. 115–185.

Bardgett and van der Putten (2014).

Anthony et al. (2023).

FAO (2020a), p. 7.

Orgiazzi et al. (2016), p. 31, FAO (2020a), p. 11.

Bottinelli et al. (2020).

Briones (2018).

IUSS Working Group WRB (2022).

Brenneisen (2006).

Gonsalves et al. (2022).

Decaëns et al. (2006).

FAO (2020a), p. 7, Geisen et al. (2019b).

Buckeridge et al. (2020); Wang et al. (2021).

Orgiazzi (2022); Byrne (2022).

Anthony et al. (2023).

FAO and ITPS (2015), Chapters 6 and 7.

Tsiafouli et al. (2015).

Paoletti et al. (1993), Labouyrie et al. (2023), Köninger et al. (2023).

Tedersoo et al. (2014).

Guerra et al. (2022), Tedersoo et al. (2022), Bardgett and van der Putten (2014).

FAO (2021a).

Tibbett et al. (2020).

Wagg et al. (2014), Bender et al. (2016), Soliveres et al. (2016), Orgiazzi and Panagos (2018), El Mujtar et al. (2019), Hallam and Hodson (2020).

Thakur et al. (2018), Rillig et al. (2019).

FAO (2020a), p. 191.

Wolters (2001).

Wu et al. (2011), Tedersoo et al. (2022), Guerra et al. (2022).

Kibblewhite et al. (2008).

Simkin et al. (2022)

Spronken-Smith and Oke (1998); Rakoto et al. (2021).

O’Riordan et al. (2021), Fan et al. (2023).

Bray et al. (2019).

Bray and Wickings (2019).

UN-Habitat (2020).

FAO and ITPS (2015), p. 128.

Cameron et al. (2019).

Phillips et al. (2019).

Guerra et al. (2021), p. 239.

Guerra et al. (2021).

Guerra et al. (2021), p. 239.

FAO and ITPS (2015).

Phillips et al. (2019).

FAO (2020a), Annex I.

JRC (2022), Labouyrie et al. (2023), Köninger et al. (2023).

EC (2021, 2023), European Parliament. Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (2023).

Allison (2021).

Menta et al. (2018).

Soil BON Foodweb website.

FAO (2020b), pp. 52–63, 79.

FAO-ITPS (2020), p. 5.

GSBI webinar (2022).

Turbé et al. (2010).

Jeffrey et al. (2010).

GSBI website.

Orgiazzi et al. (2016).

CBD/COP/DEC/14/30.23 (30 November 2018).

FAO et al. (2020).

FAO (2021a), p. 1.

FAO (2021a), pp. 4–5.

FAO (2017).

FAO-ITPS (2020).

FAO (2021a), p. 1.

FAO (2021a), p. 5.

FAO (2021a).

FAO (2021b).

CBD COP V/6.

CBD COP III/11, Annex III.

CBD COP V/5.

CBD COP VI/5.

CBD COP VIII/23.

COP VIII/23.B.2 and 3.

CBD COP III/11; COP VIII/23.

CBD/COP/DEC/14/30.24(b).

CBD/SBSTTA/24/7/REV.1 (4 December 2020),

CBD/COP/DEC/15/28 (19 December 2022).

100

FAO (2017).

101

FAO (2017).

102

Revised World Soil Charter 2015.

103

FAO and WHO (2014).

104

FAO (2019).

105

Previously FAO (2012), now FAO (2022).

106

CBD/COP/DEC/15/28 Annex, Part V.

107

CBD/COP/DEC/15/28 Annex, Part IV.

108

Guerra et al. (2020).

109

CBD/COP/DEC/15/28 Annex, Part III.

110

CBD COP X/2, Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, III. Mission of the Strategic Plan refers to mainstreaming of ‘biodiversity issues and values’.

111

CBD website: Mainstreaming Biodiversity: concept and work under the Convention.

112

CBD COP X/3, paragraph 9(b)(ii).

113

CBD website: Mainstreaming Biodiversity: concept and work under the Convention.

114

CBD COP X/2, Annex.

115

Zhongming et al. (2020); CBD/SBI/3/2/Add.2 (16 March 2020).

116

CBD/COP/DEC/15/4, Annex 1, Section B.

117

CBD/COP/DEC/15/4, Section F.

118

CBD/COP/DEC/15/4, Section C.

119

CBD/COP/DEC/15/4.

120

CBD/COP/DEC/15/4, Annex 1, Section H.

121

CBD/COP/DEC/15/4, Annex 1, Section J.

122

CBD/COP/DEC/15/6.

123

CBD/COP/DEC/15/4, Annex 1, Section K.

124

CBD website, Related documents, CBD Secretariat ‘Mainstreaming Biodiversity: concept and work under the Convention’.

125

CBD COP X/2.

126

CBD Cancun Declaration on mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for well-being, 3 December 2016, UNEP/CBD/COP/13/24.

127

CBD COP 14/4.

128

CBD website, Related documents, CBD Secretariat ‘Mainstreaming Biodiversity: concept and work under the Convention’.

129

CBD/SBI/3/13 (31 August 2020).

130

CBD/SBI/3/13/Add.1 (28 August 2020).

131

CBD COP14/3, Annex I.

132

CBD/SBI/3/13, 31 August 2020.

133

CBD/COP/15/INF/10, 11 and 12, 11 November 2022.

134

CBD COP 15/17.

135

CBD/SBI/3/13, 31 August 2020.

136

CBD/SBI/REC/3/15, 28 March 2022.

137

CBD/SBI/3/13 (31 August 2020), para. 15.

138

Forster et al. (2021), p. v.

139

Forster et al. (2021), p. 3.

140

FAO (2017).

141

Guerra et al. (2021), p. 239.

SSA (2019).

BSSS (2021a, b).

BSSS (2022).

Uksoils website ‘About Us’.

146

Xylander (2020).

147

Hågvar (1998).

148

CBD COP Decision 15/12.

149

Cambridge City Council (2019).

150

Cambridge City Council (2021), p. 7.

151

Hawksley and Mungoran (2020).

152

Cambridge City Council (2021), Cambridge City Council website ‘Reduced use of herbicides’.

153

Cambridge City Council (2021).

154

Cambridge City Council website ‘Reduced use of herbicides’ and ‘Cambridge herbicide free ward trial extended’ (which was accessed on 16 August 2023).

155

Cambridge City Council website ‘Adopt your street to help improve biodiversity’.

156

Monmouthshire County Council website ‘Nature Isn’t Neat Training Manual’, second last page.

157

Monmouthshire County Council website ‘Nature Isn’t Neat’.

158

Monmouthshire County Council website ‘Nature Isn’t Neat Training Manual’, second page.

159

Monmouthshire County Council website ‘Nature Isn’t Neat Training Manual’, second last page.

160

Christmann (2019).

161

Orgiazzi and Panagos (2018).

162

Natural Cambridgeshire (2018).

163

Simon (2021).

164

DEFRA (2009).

165

DEFRA (2009) pp. 4, 48.

166

CL:AIRE website ‘DEFRA Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites—survey extended’.

167

SUSHI (2020).

168

IEMA (2022).

169

HES.SO People website ‘Fabienne Faure Boivin’.

170

Neuner and Schaber (2020).

171

BAMU website ‘Bodenschutz beim Bauen’; Havlicek and Staehli (2022), p. 26.

172

Neuner and Schaber (2020).

SEPA (2019).

SEPA (2019), 2.1.

SEPA (2019), 2.3.

SEPA (2019), 2.3.

Tobias and Price (2020), p. 3.

178

Welsh Government (2021), 3.58–9.

179

IEMA (2022), pp. 47–49.

180

Welsh Government (2022).

181

Section 4.

182

Welsh Government (2019), pp. 140–141.

183

Section 10, Gov.wales website ‘Wellbeing of Wales: national indicators’.

184

Gov.uk website Environmental Land Mangement (ELM) update: how government will pay for land-based environment and climate goods and services. Updated 21 June 2023.

185

DEFRA (2009), p. 10.

186

HM Government (2023), p. 165.

187

HM Government (2023), p. 165.

DEFRA (2023).

DEFRA (2023), p. 18.

DEFRA (2023), p. 21.

DEFRA (2023).

Heindorf (2019).

Sutherland et al. (2021).

194

Galab et al. (2021), p. 74.

195

Galab et al. (2021), pp. 39–40.

196

TEEB website.

197

CBD COP X/2.7.

198

CBD/SBI/3/L/17 (28 March 2022).

199

Waring and Steinem (1988), Raworth (2017).

200

Dasgupta (2021), p. 47.

201

Bennett Institute for Public Policy website ‘The Wealth Economy’.

202

Dasgupta (2021), p. 107, Steffen (2015).

203

Dasgupta (2021), p. 6.

204

Dasgupta (2021), pp. 62–63, Box 2.5.

205

Dasgupta (2021), p. 112, Box 4.3.

206

Finance and Biodiversity Foundation et al. (2022).

207

Robeco and CISL (2022), CISL and UBP (2022), CISL and NatWest Group (2022).

Fee (2019).

TNFD website.

TNFD website.

TNFD (2023a), p. 8.

TNFD (2023a), p. 7.

TNFD (2023a), p. 131.

TNFD (2023a), p. 9.

TNFD (2023b).

TNFD (2023a), p. 83.

See, for example, The Chancery Lane Project (TCLP), which includes ‘Soren’s Clause on sustainable soil management’ (2022) for use and adaptation in contracts and other documents.

218

The use of the term ‘compensate for’ here does not condone ‘offsetting’ or ‘land grabbing.’ Respect for the rights of land workers’, subsistence farmers, women and youth, and indigenous peoples and local communities is expected in the ‘site specific’ and ‘neighbouring ’contexts, as well as in the ‘global’ context.

219

Lilburne et al. (2020).

220

Wall et al. (2015), Geisen et al. (2019a), Bach et al. (2020), Guerra et al. (2021), Köninger et al. (2022).

221

FAO et al. (2020), p xxii, Montanarella and Panagos (2021).

222

UN General Assembly Resolution, 25 September 2015, A/Res/70/1 (21 October 2015).

223

CBD/COP/DEC/15/28, Annex 1.

224

FAO (2020b).

225

UNCCD Decision 7/COP.13.

226

UNFCCC 1992.

227

Paris Agreement 2015.

228

Basel Convention 1989.

229

Rotterdam Convention 1998.

230

Stockholm Convention 2001.

231

Minamata Convention 2013.

232

UN General Assembly Resolution, 1 March 2019, A/RES/73/284 (6 March 2019).

233

CBD/SBSTTA/REC/24/6 (27 March 2022).

234

Bach et al. (2020), p. 12.

235

EC (2023).

236

Benton et al. (2021).

237

CBD COP Decision 15/28 Annex.IV.20(b); TCLP Soren’s Clause (2022).

238

Wolff and Kaphengst (2017), Desrousseaux (2018).

239

Cartagena Protocol ono Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2000; Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010.

240

CBD COP Decision 15/29, Wall et al. (2015); Singh et al. (2023).

241

Monbiot (2022).

242

Global Soil Partnership website ‘International Network on Soil Biodiversity’.

243

FAO website ‘FAO’s Global Soil Partnership launched the Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory at COP15’.

Adhikari K, Hartemink AE (2016) Linking soils to ecosystem services—a global review. Geoderma 262:101–111CrossRef

Allison R (2021) The Soil Health Score Card: What is is and how to use it. Available https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/land-preparation/soils/the-soil-health-scorecard-what-it-is-and-how-to-use-it. Accessed 22 June 2022

Anthony MA, Franz Bender S, van der Heijden MGA (2023) Enumerating soil biodiversity. PNAS 120(33). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2304663120

Bach EM, Ramirez KS, Fraser TD, Wall DH (2020) Soil biodiversity integrates solutions for a sustainable future. Sustainability 12:2662CrossRef

Bamu website ‘Bodenschutz beim Bauen’. Available https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/boden/fachinformationen/massnahmen-fuer-den-bodenschutz/bodenschutz-beim-bauen.html. Accessed 22 June 2022

Bardgett RD, van der Putten WH (2014) Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515:505–511CrossRef

Baveye PC, Baveye J, Gowdy J (2016) Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Front Environ Sci 4:41CrossRef

Beach T, Luzzadder-Beach S, Dunning N (2019) Out of the soil: Soil (dark matter biodiversity) and societal ‘collapses’ from Mesoamerica to the Mesopotamia and beyond. Biolog Extinct New Persp:138–174

Bender SF, Wagg C, van der Heijden MG (2016) An underground revolution: biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol Evol 31:440–452CrossRef

Bennett Institute For Public Policy website ‘The Wealth Economy’. Available https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/research/research-projects/wealth-economy-social-and-natural-capital/. Accessed 22 June 2022

Benton T, Carling B, Harwatt H, Pudasaini R, Wellesley L (2021) Food system impacts on biodiversity loss. Chatham House Research Paper, Energy Environment and Resources Programme. Available https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/02/food-system-impacts-biodiversity-loss. Accessed 22 June 2022

Bottinelli N, Hedde M, Jouquet P, Capowiez Y (2020) An explicit definition of earthworm ecological categories–Marcel Bouché’s triangle revisited. Geoderma 372:114361CrossRef

Bray N, Wickings K (2019) The roles of invertebrates in the urban soil microbiome. Front Ecol Evol 359

Bray N, Kao-Kniffin J, Frey SD, Fahey T, Wickings K (2019) Soil macroinvertebrate presence alters microbial community composition and activity in the rhizosphere. Front Microbiol 10:256CrossRef

Brenneisen S (2006) Space for urban wildlife: designing green roofs as habitats in Switzerland. Urban Habitats 4

Briones MJI (2018) The serendipitous value of soil fauna in ecosystem functioning; The unexplained explained. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00149

BSSS (2021a) Science Note: Soil Carbon full. Available https://soils.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BSSS_Science-Note_Soil-Carbon_Final_May22_75YRS_DIGITAL.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

BSSS (2021b) Science Note: Soil Carbon short

BSSS (2022) BSSS Newsletter - Ear to the Ground, Issue 27

Buckeridge KM, La Rosa AF, Mason KE, Whitaker J, Mcnamara NP, Grant HK, Ostle NJ (2020) Sticky dead microbes: Rapid abiotic retention of microbial necromass in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 149:107929CrossRef

Byrne LB (2022) The essence of soil biodiversity. Conserv Lett 15(6):e412900. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12900

Cambridge City Council (2019) website ‘Biodiversity Emergency’. Available https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/biodiversity-emergency. Accessed 22 June 2022

Cambridge City Council (2021) Website ‘Parks and Open Spaces Biodiversity Toolkit’. Available https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s55963/Appendix%20B%20Parks%20Biodiversity%20Toolkit.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Cambridge City Council website ‘Adopt your street to help improve biodiversity’. Available https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/adopt-your-street-to-help-improve-biodiversity. Accessed 22 June 2022

Cambridge City Council website ‘Reduced use of herbicides’. Available https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/reduced-use-of-herbicides. Accessed 22 June 2022

Cameron EK, Martins IS, Lavelle P, Mathieu J, Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Gottschall F, Guerra CA, Hines J, Patoine G (2019) Global mismatches in aboveground and belowground biodiversity. Conserv Biol 33:1187–1192CrossRef

CBD website ‘Biodiversity mainstreaming’. Available https://www.cbd.int/mainstreaming/. Accessed 22 June 2022

CBD website: Mainstreaming Biodiversity: concept and work under the Convention. Accessed 12 Sept 2023

Christmann S (2019) Do we realize the full impact of pollinator loss on other ecosystem services and the challenges for any restoration in terrestrial areas? Restorat Ecol 27:720–725CrossRef

CISL & Natwestgroup (2022) Nature-related financial risk: use case. Land degradation, UK farmers and indicative financial risk

CISL & UPB (2022) Nature-related financial risk: use case. The EU Farm to Fork Strategy and Fertilizer Companies

CL:AIRE website ‘DEFRA Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites - survey extended’. Available https://www.claire.co.uk/home/news/1659-defra-construction-code-of-practice-for-the-sustainable-use-of-soils-on-construction-sites-survey-extended. Accessed 22 June 2022

Convention On Biological Diversity (1992) 1760 UNTS 79. Available https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/. Accessed 22 June 2022

Daily GC, Matson PA, Vitousek PM (1997) Ecosystem services supplied by soil. Nat Serv Societal Dependence Nat Ecosyst:113–132

Dasgupta P (2021) The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review, HM Treasury, UK

Decaëns T, Jiménez JJ, Gioia C, Measey G, Lavelle P (2006) The values of soil animals for conservation biology. Eur J Soil Biol 42:S23–S38CrossRef

DEFRA (2009) Code of Practice on the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. Available https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-the-sustainable-use-of-soils-on-construction-sites. Accessed 22 June 2022

DEFRA (2023) Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) Handbook for the SFI 2023 Offer. v.2 August 2023. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sfi-handbook-for-the-sfi-2023-offer. Last accessed 20 September 2023

DEFRA website ‘Soil Health Action Plan to be Launched’. Available https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/09/09/soil-health-action-plan-to-be-launched/. Accessed 22 June 2022

Desrousseaux M (2018) The French law on biodiversity and the protection of soils. In: Ginzky H (ed) International yearbook of soil law and policy 2017. Springer

Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KM, Baste IA, Brauman KA (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270–272CrossRef

Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol Econ 69:1858–1868CrossRef

Dominati E, Mackay A, Green S, Patterson M (2014) A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: a case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand. Ecol Econ 100:119–129CrossRef

EC (2021). EU Soil Strategy for 2030. Available https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/soil-strategy_en. Accessed 22 June 2022

European Commission (2023) Proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council on soil monitoring and reslience (Soil Monitoring Law) COM 416final

European Parliament, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (2023) Draft report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law) (COM(2023)0416 – C9-0234/2023 – 2023/0232(COD))

El Mujtar V, Muñoz N, Mc Cormick BP, Pulleman M, Tittonell P (2019) Role and management of soil biodiversity for food security and nutrition; where do we stand? Global Food Secur 20:132–144CrossRef

Fan K, Chu H, Eldridge DJ, Gaitan JJ, Liu YR, Sokoya B, Wang JT, Hu HW, He JZ, Sun W, Cui H (2023) Soil biodiversity supports the delivery of multiple ecosystem functions in urban greenspaces. Nat Ecol Evol 7(1):113–126

FAO (2017) Voluntary guidelines for sustainable soil management. Available https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/0549ec19-2d49-4cfb-9b96-bfbbc7cc40bc/. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO (2019) The International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilizers. Available https://www.fao.org/3/ca5253en/ca5253en.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO (2020a) FAO Strategy on Mainstreaming Biodiversity Across Agricultural Sectors

FAO (2020b) Soil Testing Methods manual. Available https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca2796en/. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO (2021a) Keep soil alive, protect soil biodiversity. Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity 19-22 April 2021 - Outcome Document. Available https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb6005en/. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO (2021b) Keep soil alive, protect soil biodiversity. Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity 19-22 April 2021 - Proceedings. Available https://www.fao.org/3/cb7374en/cb7374en.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO (2022) Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. First revision. Available https://www.fao.org/3/i2801e/i2801e.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO website ‘FAO’s Global Soil Partnership launched the Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory at COP15’. Available at https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/highlights/detail/en/c/1627617/. Accessed 17 September 2023.

FAO & ITPS (2015) Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR). Available https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/c6814873-efc3-41db-b7d3-2081a10ede50/. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO & WHO (2014) International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. Available https://www.fao.org/documents/card/4e/c/I3604E

FAO, ITPS, GSBI, SCBD & EC (2020) State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity - Status, challenges and potentialities. Available https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1928en/. Accessed 22 June 2022

FAO-ITPS (2020) Protocol for the Assessment of Sustainable Soil Management. Available https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload//GSP/SSM/SSM_Protocol_EN_006.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Fee E (2019) Implementing the Paris climate agreement: risks and opportunities for sustainable land use. In: Ginzky H (ed) International yearbook of soil law and policy 2018. Springer

Finance and Biodiversity Foundation, EC, Business@Biodiversity, UNEP FI, PRI (2022) Overview of Initiatives for Financial Institutions. Available at https://www.financeforbiodiversity.org/wp-content/uploads/Finance_and_Biodiversity_Overview_of_Initiatives.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2023

Forster T, Egal F, Mera CAR, Escudero AG (2021) Urban-Rural Linkages and Ecosystem Restoration. UNCCD Global Land Outlook Working Paper. Available https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-03/UNCCD%20GLO%20WP%20urban-rural%20linkages.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Galab S, Rao GB, Reddy PP, Ravi C Raju DSR, Rajani A (2021) Impact Assessment of APCNF (Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming) Consolidated 2019-20 Report

Geisen S, Wall DH, van der Putten WH (2019a) Challenges and opportunities for soil biodiversity in the anthropocene. Curr Biol 29:R1036–R1044CrossRef

Geisen S, Briones MJ, Gan H, Behan-Pelletier VM, Friman VP, de Groot GA, Hannula SE, Lindo Z, Philippot L, Tiunov AV, Wall DH (2019b) A methodological framework to embrace soil biodiversity. Soil Biol Biochem 136:107536

Gilyarov MS (1949) The features of soil as an environment and its significance for the evolution of insects. USSR Academy of Sciences Press, Moscow–Leningrad

Global Soil Partnership website ‘International Network on Soil Biodiversity’. Available https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/netsob. Accessed 22 June 2022

Gonsalves S, Starry O, Szallies A, Brenneisen S (2022) The effect of urban green roof design on beetle biodiversity. Urban Ecosyst 25:205–219CrossRef

GOV.UK website ‘A summary of the SFI in 2022’. Available https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-summary-of-the-sfi-in-2022. Accessed 22 June 2022

GOV.UK website ‘Environmental Land Management Schemes: overview’. Available https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-land-management-schemes-overview. Last Accessed 20 September 2023

GOV.WALES website ‘Wellbeing Wales National Indicators’. Available https://gov.wales/wellbeing-wales-national-indicators. Accessed 22 June 2022

GSBI webinar ‘Towards a Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory’. Available https://www.globalsoilbiodiversity.org/webinar-videos-2. Accessed 22 June 2022

Guerra CA, Heintz-Buschart A, Sikorski J, Chatzinotas A, Guerrero-Ramírez N, Cesarz S, Beaumelle L, Rillig MC, Maestre FT, Delgado-Baquerizo MAND, Buscot F (2020) Blind spots in global soil biodiversity and ecosystem function research. Nat Commun 11(1):1–13CrossRef

Guerra CA, Bardgett RD, Caon L, Crowther TW, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Montanarella L, Navarro LM, Orgiazzi A, Singh BK, Tedersoo L (2021) Tracking, targeting, and conserving soil biodiversity. Science 371:239–241CrossRef

Guerra CA, Berdugo M, Eldridge DJ, Eisenhauer N, Singh BK, Cui H, Abades S, Alfaro FD, Bamigboye AR, Bastida F, Blanco-Pastor JL (2022) Global hotspots for soil nature conservation. Nature 610(7933):693–698

Hågvar S (1998) The relevance of the Rio-Convention on biodiversity to conserving the biodiversity of soils. Appl Soil Ecol 9:1–7CrossRef

Hallam J, Hodson ME (2020) Impact of different earthworm ecotypes on water stable aggregates and soil water holding capacity. Biol Fertil Soils 56:607–617CrossRef

Havlicek E, Staehli R (2022) Soil Protection in Switzerland: Steps, Hurdles, Successes and Soil Strategy. In BSSS, Soil Legacy Report December 2022. Available at https://soils.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/BSSS_WCSS-Soil-Policy-Legacy-Report_Jan-2023_Final_no-crops-compressed.pdf. Last accessed 19 September 2023

Hawksley, R. & Mungoran, R. (2020) Greater Cambridge Chalk Streams Project Report. Available https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/9067/greater-cambridge-chalk-streams-project-report.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Heindorf I (2019) Sikkim’s State Policy on Organic Farming and Sikkim Organic Mission, India. Available https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/sikkims-state-policy-organic-farming-and-sikkim-organic-mission-india. Accessed 22 June 2022

HES.SO People website ‘Fabienne Favre Boivin’. Available https://people.hes-so.ch/en/profile/fabienne.favreboi. Accessed 22 June 2022

HM Government (2023) Environmental Improvement Plan: First revision of the 25 Year Environment Plan. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-improvement-plan. Last accessed 20 September 2023

IEMA (2022) A New Perspective on land and Soil in Environmental Impact Assessment. Available https://www.iema.net/resources/blog/2022/02/17/launch-of-new-eia-guidance-on-land-and-soils. Accessed 22 June 2022

IPBES (2018) The Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Available https://ipbes.net/assessment-reports/ldr. Accessed 22 June 2022

IPBES (2019) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available https://ipbes.net/global-assessment. Accessed 22 June 2022

IPCC (2019) Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greehouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Available https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/. Accessed 22 June 2022

IPCC (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Available https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/. Accessed 22 June 2022

IUCN (2021) IUCN’s Key Messages CBD OEWG3. Available https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_key_messages_and_detailed_views_first_draft_post-2020_gbf_0.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

IUCN (2022) IUCN’s position paper CBD OEWG3. Available https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_position_paper_resumed_cbd_sbstta24-sbi3-oewg3_.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

IUSS Working Group WRB. 2022. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria

Jeffrey S, Gardi C, Jones A, Montanarella L, Marmo L, Miko L, Ritz K, Peres G, Römbke J, Putten WHVD (2010) European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity

Jónsson JÖG, Davíðsdóttir B (2016) Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services. Agric Syst 145:24–38CrossRef

JRC (2022) Project Officer - Soil Biodiversity Monitoring and Assessment. Available https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public_path/vacancies/2022-IPR-D3-FGIV-020628.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Kadykalo AN, López-Rodriguez MD, Ainscough J, Droste N, Ryu H, Ávila-Flores G, Le Clec’h S, Muñoz MC, Nilsson L, Rana S (2019) Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’. Ecosyst People 15:269–287CrossRef

Kibblewhite M, Ritz K, Swift M (2008) Soil health in agricultural systems. Philosop Transact Royal Soc B Biol Sci 363:685–701CrossRef

Köninger J, Panagos P, Jones A, Briones M, Orgiazzi A (2022) In defence of soil biodiversity: towards an inclusive protection in the European Union. Biol Conserv 268:109475CrossRef

Köninger J, Ballabio C, Panagos P, Jones A, Schmid MW, Orgiazzi A, Briones MJ (2023). Ecosystem type drives soil eukaryotic diversity and composition in Europe. Glob Chang Biol 29(19):5706–5719

Labouyrie M, Ballabio C, Romero F, Panagos P, Jones A, Schmid MW, Mikryukov V, Dulya O, Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Lugato E (2023) Patterns in soil microbial diversity across Europe. Nat Commun 14(1):3311

Lavelle et al (2022) Soil macroinvertebrate communities - A world-wide assessment in Global Ecology and Biogeography at https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13492

Lilburne L, Eger A, Mudge P, Ausseil A-G, Stevenson B, Herzig A, Beare M (2020) The land resource circle: Supporting land-use decision making with an ecosystem-service-based framework of soil functions. Geoderma 363:114134CrossRef

MAB (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. New Island, Washington, DC

Menta C, Conti FD, Pinto S, Bodini A (2018) Soil biological quality index (QBS-ar): 15 years of application at global scale. Ecol Indicat 85:773–780CrossRef

Monbiot G (2022) Regenesis: feeding the world without devouring the planet. Penguin

Monmouthshire County Council website ‘Nature Isn’t Neat Training Manual’. Available https://www.monmouthshire.gov.uk/app/uploads/2019/09/NiN-training-manual.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Monmouthshire County Council website ‘Nature Isn’t Neat’. Available https://www.monmouthshire.gov.uk/nin/. Accessed 22 June 2022

Montanarella L, Panagos P (2021) The relevance of sustainable soil management within the European Green Deal. Land Use Policy 100:104950CrossRef

Natural Cambridgeshire (2018) Website ‘Developing with nature toolkit’. Available https://naturalcambridgeshire.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/nc-developing-with-nature-toolkit.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Neuner S, Schaber E (2020) Soil potection on construction sites in Switzerland. In: Nève A, Poljanec A, Vrśčaj B (eds) Soil management practices in the Alps

O’Riordan R, Davies J, Stevens C, Quinton JN, Boyko C (2021) The ecosystem services of urban soils: a review. Geoderma 395:115076CrossRef

Orgiazzi A (2022) What is soil biodiversity? Conserv Lett 15:e12845CrossRef

Orgiazzi A, Panagos P (2018) Soil biodiversity and soil erosion: it is time to get married: Adding an earthworm factor to soil erosion modelling. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 27:1155–1167CrossRef

Orgiazzi A, Bardgett RD, Barrios E (2016) Global soil biodiversity atlas. European Commission

Paoletti MG, Foissner W, Coleman D (1993) Soil biota, nutrient cycling, and farming systems. Lewes Publishers

Pascual U, Termansen M, Hedlund K, Brussaard L, Faber JH, Foudi S, Lemanceau P, Jørgensen SL (2015) On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 15:11–18CrossRef

Potapov et al (2022) Global monitoring of soil animal communities using a common methodology in soil organisms at https://doi.org/10.25674/so94iss1id178

Rakoto PY et al Revisiting the cooling effects of urban greening: Planning implications of vegetation types and spatial configuration https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127266

Pereira P, Bogunovic I, Muñoz-Rojas M, Brevik EC (2018) Soil ecosystem services, sustainability, valuation and management. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 5:7–13CrossRef

Phillips HR, Guerra CA, Bartz ML, Briones MJ, Brown G, Crowther TW, Ferlian O, Gongalsky KB, van den Hoogen J, Krebs J (2019) Global distribution of earthworm diversity. Science 366:480–485CrossRef

Plaas E, Meyer-Wolfarth F, Banse M, Bengtsson J, Bergmann H, Faber J, Potthoff M, Runge T, Schrader S, Taylor A (2019) Towards valuation of biodiversity in agricultural soils: a case for earthworms. Ecol Econ 159:291–300CrossRef

Powlson DS, Gregory PJ, Whalley WR, Quinton JN, Hopkins DW, Whitmore AP, Hirsch PR, Goulding KW (2011) Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services. Food Policy 36:S72–S87CrossRef

Raworth K (2017) Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing

Rillig MC, Ryo M, Lehmann A, Aguilar-Trigueros CA, Buchert S, Wulf A, Iwasaki A, Roy J, Yang G (2019) The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and microbial biodiversity. Science 366:886–890CrossRef

Ritz K (2014) Life in earth. A truly epic production. The soil underfoot: infinite possibilities for a finite resource. pp 379–394

ROBECO & CISL (2022) How soil degradation amplifies the financial vulnerability of listed companies in the agricultural value chain

SEPA (2019) Guidance on consideration of soil in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/162986/lups-sea-gu2-consideration-of-soil-in-sea.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Simkin RD, Seto KC, Mcdonald RI, Jetz W (2022) Biodiversity impacts and conservation implications of urban land expansion projected to 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci 119:e2117297119CrossRef

Simon F (2021) Excavated soils: the biggest source of waste you’ve never heard of. Euractiv.com [Online]. Available https://www.euractiv.com/section/circular-economy/news/excavated-soils-the-biggest-source-of-waste-youve-never-heard-of/. Accessed 22 June 2022

Singh BK, Yan ZZ, Whittaker M, Vargas R, Abdelfattah A (2023) Soil microbiomes must be explicitly included in One Health policy. Nature Microbiology, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-023-01386-y

Smith P, Keesstra SD, Silver WL, Adhya TK (2021) The role of soils in delivering nature’s contributions to people. The Royal SocietyCrossRef

Soliveres S, van der Plas F, Manning P, Prati D, Gossner MM, Renner SC, Alt F, Arndt H, Baumgartner V, Binkenstein J (2016) Biodiversity at multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 536:456–459CrossRef

Spronken-Smith R, Oke T (1998) The thermal regime of urban parks in two cities with different summer climates. Int J Remote Sens 19:2085–2104CrossRef

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, De Vries W, de Wit CA (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855CrossRef

SUSHI (Sustinable Urban Soils Health Initiative) Position Paper (2020). Available https://sustainablesoils.org/images/pdf/SUSHI.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Sustainable Soils Alliance (SSA) (2019) FOI reveals just 0.41% of total monitoring budget spent on soil. Available https://sustainablesoils.org/images/pdf/FOIdocx.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Sutherland WJ, Atkinson PW, Broad S, Brown S, Clout M, Dias MP, Dicks LV, Doran H, Fleishman E, Garratt EL (2021) A 2021 horizon scan of emerging global biological conservation issues. Trends Ecol Evol 36:87–97CrossRef

Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. University of California PressCrossRef

TCLP ‘Soren’s Clause on Sustainable Soil Management Obligations’ (2022) Available at https://chancerylaneproject.org/climateclauses/sustainable-soil-management-obligations/. Accessed 17 September 2023

Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Põlme S, Kõljalg U, Yorou NS, Wijesundera R, Ruiz LV, Vasco-Palacios AM, Thu PQ, Suija A (2014) Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346:1256688CrossRef

Tedersoo L, Mikryukov V, Zizka A, Bahram M, Hagh-Doust N, Asland S, Prylutski O, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Maestre FT, Pðrn J, Öpik M (2022) Global patterns and endemnicity and vulnerability of soil fungi. Global Change Biology 28(22):6669–6710

TEEB Website. Available http://teebweb.org. Accessed 22 June 2022

Thakur MP, Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Stefanski A, Rich R, Rice KE, Eddy WC, Eisenhauer N (2018) Reduced feeding activity of soil detritivores under warmer and drier conditions. Nat Clim Change 8:75–78CrossRef

Tibbett M, Fraser TD, Duddigan S (2020) Identifying potential threats to soil biodiversity. PeerJ 8:e9271CrossRef

TNFD (2022) The TNFD Nature-related Risk & Opportunity Management and Disclosure Framework Beta v0.1 Release. Available https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/220321-TNFD-framework-beta-v0.1-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

TNFD (2023a) Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures September 2023. Available at https://tnfd.global/publication/recommendations-of-the-taskforce-on-nature-related-financial-disclosures/. Last accessed 19 September 2023

TNFD (2023b) Guidance on the identification and assessment of nature-related issues: the LEAP approach. Version 1.0 September 2023. Available at https://tnfd.global/additional-guidance/. Last accessed 19 September 2023

TNFD Website. Available https://tnfd.global. Accessed 22 June 2022.

Tobias S, Price B (2020) How effective is spatial planning for cropland protection? An assessment based on land-use scenarios. Land 9:43CrossRef

Tsiafouli MA, Thébault E, Sgardelis SP, De Ruiter PC, van der Putten WH, Birkhofer K, Hemerik L, de Vries FT, Bardgett RD, Brady MV (2015) Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Global Change Biol 21:973–985CrossRef

Turbé, A., De Toni, A., Benito, P., Lavelle, P., Lavelle, P., Camacho, N. R., van der Putten, W. H., Labouze, E. & Mudgal, S. (2010) Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools for policy makers. Available https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/soil-biodiversity-functions-threats-and-tools-for-policy-makers. Accessed 22 June 2022

UKSOILS website ‘About us’. Available https://uksoils.org/about-us. Accessed 22 June 2022

UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlement Programme) (2020) New Urban Agenda Illustrated. Available https://unhabitat.org/the-new-urban-agenda-illustrated. Accessed 22 June 2022

Wagg C, Bender SF, Widmer F, van der Heijden MG (2014) Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:5266–5270CrossRef

Wall DH, Behan-Pelletier V, Jones TH, Ritz K, Six J, Strong DR, van der Putten WH (2012) Soil ecology and ecosystem services. Oxford University PressCrossRef

Wall DH, Nielsen UN, Six J (2015) Soil biodiversity and human health. Nature 528:69–76CrossRef

Wang B, An S, Liang C, Liu Y, Kuzyakov Y (2021) Microbial necromass as the source of soil organic carbon in global ecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem 162:108422CrossRef

Waring M, Steinem G (1988) If women counted: a new feminist economics. Harper & Row San Francisco

Welsh Government (2019) Sustainable Farming and our Land Available https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2019-07/brexit-consultation-document.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022.

Welsh Government (2021) Planning Policy Wales Available https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-02/planning-policy-wales-edition-11_0.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Welsh Government (2022) Letter from Minister for Climate Change to Chief Planning Officers. Available https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-03/best-and-most-versatile-agricultural-land-and-solar-pv-arrays.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2022

Wolff F, Kaphengst T (2017) The UN Convention on biological diversity and soils: status and future options. In: Ginzky H (ed) International yearbook of soil law and policy 2016. Springer

Wolters V (2001) Biodiversity of soil animals and its function. Eur J Soil Biol 37:221–227CrossRef

Wu T, Ayres E, Bardgett RD, Wall DH, Garey JR (2011) Molecular study of worldwide distribution and diversity of soil animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:17720–17725CrossRef

Xylander WE (2020) Society’s awareness for protection of soils, its biodiversity and function in 2030–we need a more intrinsic approach. Soil Org 92:203–212

Zhongming Z, Linong L, Xiaona Y, Wangqiang Z, Wei L (2020) The Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (GBO-5)

Titel: The Mainstreaming Agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Its Value to Protecting and Enhancing Soil Ecosystem Services
verfasst von: Cairo Robb
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2022
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40608-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-40609-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40609-6_8

Springer Professional

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 Soil Biodiversity Mediated Ecosystem Services

2.1 Soil Ecosystem Services (SES)

2.2 Importance of SES for Above-Ground Biodiversity

2.3 Role of Soil Organisms in SES Provision

3 Loss of Soil Biodiversity

3.1 What Is Soil Biodiversity?

3.1.1 Categorising and Describing Soil Organisms

3.1.2 Further Notes on the Question ‘What Is Soil Biodiversity?’

3.2 Loss of Soil Biodiversity Highlighted in the Status of the World’s Soil Resources Report 2015

3.2.1 Loss of Soil Biodiversity Among ITPS Ten Soil Threats

3.2.2 Effect of Loss of Soil Biodiversity on Ecosystem Services

3.2.3 Measuring and Monitoring Soil Biodiversity

3.3 State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity: Status, Challenges and Potentialities, Report 2020

3.4 Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity 2021 and Keep Soil Alive, Protect Soil Biodiversity: Outcome Document and Proceedings

4 The Relevance of Soil Biodiversity Within the CBD

4.1 Convention Text

4.2 Cross-Cutting International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity

5 CBD Mainstreaming Agenda

5.1 Mainstreaming in Context

5.1.1 Mainstreaming in CBD Convention Articles

5.1.2 Mainstreaming in CBD Strategic Plans

5.1.2.1 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020

5.1.2.2 Post-2020, now Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

5.1.3 Mainstreaming in CBD Thematic Programmes of Work and Cross-Cutting Issues and Initiatives

5.1.4 Mainstreaming in CBD COP Decisions

5.1.5 Long-Term Strategic Approach to Mainstreaming

5.2 Reciprocal Mainstreaming

5.3 Sustainable Soil Management and Soil Biodiversity as Front and Centre of Terrestrial Biodiversity Mainstreaming

6 Topical Issues and Case Studies

6.1 Citizens/Stakeholders: Raising Awareness, Monitoring and Education

6.2 Local Authorities and Partners: Parks and Open Spaces, the Pull of Pollinators and Construction Soils

6.2.1 Cambridge: Parks and Open Spaces Biodiversity Toolkit and Happy Bee Street

6.2.2 Monmouthshire: ‘Nature Isn’t Neat’ Project and Training Manual

6.2.3 The Pull of Pollinators

6.2.4 Cambridge and Peterborough: Developing with Nature Toolkit and Construction Soils

6.3 Devolved Authorities and Subnational States: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Guidelines, Prime Farmland Protection, Sustainable Farming Incentive, State-Wide Organic and Other Forms of Sustainable Farming

6.3.1 Scotland: SEA Soil Guidance and Soil Biodiversity

6.3.2 Wales: Prime Farmland Protection, ‘Very High Sensitivity’ Receptor And Global Responsibility

6.3.3 England: Sustainable Farming Incentive and Soils Data as a Public Good

6.3.4 Sikkim: 100% Organic Agriculture, and Wider Adoption of 'Natural' Farming

7 The Economics of Biodiversity and Nature-Based Financial Disclosure

8 Moving Forward

8.1 Soil Biodiversity Perception Checklist

8.2 Links with Other Regimes and Synergies

9 Conclusion

Acknowledgements