What the Land Use Framework could mean for Soil and Soil Policy

Soil featured throughout the most recent Land Use Framework for England, and has the potential to be one of the policy’s major beneficiaries, reflecting: 

• Its role:  The government’s vision is that 15 per cent of England’s current farmed land will need to transition into other uses, leaving the remaining 85 per cent to deliver more food more efficiently.  Soil will be required to do much of the heavy lifting.  

• Its capacity: Soils are the ultimate multi-functional resource, able to deliver numerous services (carbon sequestration, water storage and filtration, and food production) on the same land parcel. 

• Its potential:  The clear direction of travel outlined by the Framework is towards much more spatially targeted decision-making by harnessing the full suite of land use data, technology and tools available.  This could be a game-changer for soils. 

So what does this mean in practice?  As a ‘Framework’, the document aims to create a mechanism for strategic, science-based, practical decision making that will cascade through different policies. For soils this means the opportunity to (finally) align the numerous instruments that impact its management: regulations, Environmental Land Management, nature markets, national targets, advice and food production.   

1. The Framework highlights the recent landmark decision to make the LandIS soil data freely available, a major step towards unlocking universal soils appreciation and understanding.  Access is not the same as application, however, and bespoke tools and advice will be needed to ensure the maps are understood and interpreted by all users.  These could in turn act as the lightning rod for all the ‘official’ soil information that is currently scattered across a variety of government and other platforms to be integrated onto one platform for consistent advice and guidance.
2. The announcement of the new Predictive Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map is also welcome, updating a system based on climate data from the 1940s and soil studies from the 1970s. It should improve the interpretation of soils and agricultural land at site level and help balance development, farming and environmental priorities ensuring the most productive soils are preserved for food production.
3. LandIS and the ALC are the tip of the soils data iceberg. These need to be used by the plethora of novel technologies, models and digital tools capable of assessing and predicting a soil’s condition at a range of scales.  The data emerging from these tools needs to be fundable, accessible and inter-operable, starting with a thorough audit of this complex and growing landscape.  A model for this could be the EU’s Soil Data Centre (ESDAC), the thematic centre for soil related data in Europe.
4. The Framework emphasises the importance of joined-up thinking and the ability of farmers to align their land capabilities with national goals.  This is timely since last month the JNCC published the three national indicators for soil health:  flood risk mitigation, long-term carbon storage, and sustainable arable crop provision.  These indicators will demonstrate government progress against its commitments under the Environment Improvement Plan, and so will be critical ‘North Stars’ within the Framework, driving future policy and investment.
5. It is likely that the next iteration of the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme will be heavily influenced by the Framework, and that future actions will be influenced by spatial mapping and the targeting of funding toward areas offering the greatest benefit.  This will likely impact on the soil actions funded by the next iteration (2027) of the Sustainable Farming Incentive where previous iterations had been criticised for being at best too ‘one size fits all’, and at worst examples of ‘wrong place’ policies (Herbal Leys) which has caused the destruction of valuable habitats.
6. The Framework also looks to drive a more ‘targeted approach to Regulation’, and indicates that by 2030, farmers will have a clearer set of farming rules.  This should be based on the ‘right place’ principle and address most damaging behaviours more effectively than the current, general existing policies.  A good example are crops (e.g. maize) grown in the wrong climate and topography (slopes) leading to significant soil erosion.
7. The Framework is explicit about the value of private markets for supporting government objectives, and it highlights the importance of multiple outcomes and revenue streams to coexist on the same geography, and the need for public and private funding to be stackable to maximise revenue opportunities for farmers.  As the recent consultation on ecosystem services highlights, Standards are critical for attracting private capital flow, and while these are emerging for nature and carbon outcomes, there is no equivalent ‘Standard’ for soil health at landscape scale.  This is a gap that urgently needs filling.
8. The commitment to research on how land and soils will be affected by future scenarios, such as climate change, is also welcome. This will fill knowledge gaps and supports furthering our understanding of soils and how they respond to heatwaves, drought and extreme rainfall.  Businesses – especially those in food supply – are carrying out their own studies in the name of long-term, resilient supply, often specific to particular crops or regions. These insights need to be built into the nationwide picture.