Soil as a public good is becoming a food security test

Soil as a public good is becoming a food security test | Photo: Daniel Dan

Published on 17 June 2026 at 03:46 GMT

By Editorial Team SDGXX

Soil is often treated as an agricultural input, managed by farmers, priced through yields and discussed mainly when harvests fail. That framing is too narrow. Soil as a public good is becoming one of the central sustainability questions of this century, because degraded land weakens food systems, intensifies climate risk, undermines biodiversity and exposes poorer communities to higher food prices and rural insecurity. The issue is not simply how crops are grown, but whether societies are protecting the living foundation on which food, water, livelihoods and settlement depend.

The scale of the problem is now difficult to dismiss. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has warned that about 1.7 billion people live in areas where historically accumulated land degradation is linked to lower crop yields. It also notes that heavy use of fertilisers and other inputs can mask land damage in wealthier countries while adding further environmental pressure.

Soil degradation is not one process. It includes erosion by wind and water, loss of organic matter, salinisation, compaction, contamination and declining biological activity. These changes are often slow enough to remain politically invisible, but fast enough to damage farm incomes and food security within a generation. A field can still look productive while its ability to retain water, store carbon and support soil organisms is being steadily reduced.

That is why the language of ownership is inadequate. Soil may sit under private land, leased fields, communal rangelands or state property, but its benefits and losses spill across society. When soil washes into rivers, water quality suffers. When it loses carbon, climate pressures increase. When harvests become less reliable, food prices and import dependence can rise. When degraded land no longer supports livelihoods, migration and social stress can follow.

The strongest case for treating soil as a public good is not sentimental. It is practical. Healthy soil regulates water, supports biodiversity, stores carbon, buffers drought, anchors rural economies and enables nutrition. These functions are not fully captured in commodity prices. A tonne of grain may enter the market, but the soil structure, microbial life and watershed stability that helped produce it are rarely valued in the same transaction.

This has direct relevance to SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 15 (life on land). The connection to SDG 2 is clearest: degraded soils can reduce productivity and make food systems more vulnerable to weather shocks. The link to SDG 13 lies in soil carbon, land management and the way droughts, floods and heat affect agricultural resilience. The link to SDG 15 is rooted in land degradation, ecosystem health and biodiversity. These goals are often discussed separately, but soil shows how closely they are connected.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has treated land, food security, desertification and land degradation as linked challenges, rather than isolated policy areas. Its work underlines that land can be both a source of emissions and part of climate adaptation, depending on how it is managed. This does not mean soil restoration can substitute for cutting fossil fuel emissions. It means climate policy that ignores land management is incomplete.

Regenerative farming has entered this debate as a response to the limits of extractive agriculture. The term can cover a wide range of practices, including reduced tillage, cover cropping, crop rotation, agroforestry, compost use, managed grazing and reduced reliance on synthetic inputs where appropriate. At its best, regenerative farming is not a branding exercise, but an attempt to rebuild soil function while maintaining viable farm businesses.

The difficulty is that regenerative farming is not a single certified system and its results vary by soil type, climate, crop, farm size and market conditions. Some practices may improve water retention and reduce erosion quickly. Gains in soil carbon can be slower, harder to measure and vulnerable to reversal if land management changes. Farmers may face transition costs, uncertain yields, new equipment needs and limited access to advice or credit.

This is where public policy matters. If society benefits from soil restoration, then farmers should not be expected to carry all the risk alone. Payments for ecosystem services, public procurement, technical extension, crop insurance reform, research funding and fairer supply contracts can all influence whether soil-friendly practices become realistic choices or remain niche ambitions. The central question is not whether farmers care about soil, but whether food systems reward long-term stewardship.

Erosion shows the urgency of the issue. Once fertile topsoil is lost, it is not easily replaced on human timescales. Erosion can be accelerated by deforestation, overgrazing, intensive tillage, poorly managed irrigation, construction and extreme rainfall. It can also be worsened by poverty, where communities may have little choice but to cultivate fragile land without the resources to protect it.

Rangelands deserve particular attention. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification has highlighted the importance of land restoration and sustainable land and water management, including for pastoralist communities and dryland regions. Its Global Land Outlook work points to land degradation as a systemic sustainability challenge, not a marginal environmental concern.

Pastoralists are sometimes presented as drivers of degradation, but that framing can be misleading. Poorly managed grazing can harm land, yet mobile and traditional grazing systems have also maintained landscapes for centuries. The problem often lies in disrupted land rights, fenced migration routes, conflict, drought, population pressure and policies that misunderstand pastoral livelihoods. Soil policy must therefore be socially informed, not only technically correct.

Food security debates also need to move beyond yield alone. Higher yields can reduce pressure to expand farmland, but production gains achieved through soil depletion create hidden liabilities. A food system that produces more today by weakening the land base for tomorrow is not secure. Food security and soil health should be measured together, including nutrition, affordability, resilience and ecological limits.

There are also geopolitical dimensions. Countries that depend heavily on imports are exposed when drought, war, export restrictions or energy price spikes disrupt global food markets. Soil degradation in one region can therefore affect consumers elsewhere. Protecting productive land is part of national resilience, but it also has global consequences in an interconnected food economy.

The private sector has a role, but caution is needed. Carbon markets and sustainability labels can direct finance towards better land management, but they can also oversimplify complex ecological changes. Soil carbon measurement is technically demanding, baselines can be disputed, and benefits may take years to verify. Schemes that reward narrow carbon gains while ignoring biodiversity, water, labour conditions or land rights risk creating new problems.

Civil society organisations have helped keep these wider questions visible. IUCN has linked land restoration to ecosystem resilience and biodiversity. World Resources Institute has examined restoration, food systems and land-use pressures. Soil Association has promoted agroecology and organic farming in the United Kingdom. Regeneration International has advocated regenerative approaches globally. Their perspectives differ, but they contribute to a broader shift: soil is no longer treated only as dirt under production, but as living infrastructure.

That phrase matters. Roads, bridges and power grids are maintained because their collapse is visibly disruptive. Soil infrastructure fails more quietly, through declining fertility, more runoff, lower resilience and deeper dependence on costly inputs. By the time the damage is obvious, recovery may require years of patient work.

The public-good framing does not remove responsibility from landowners or agribusiness. It broadens responsibility to include governments, retailers, lenders, consumers, researchers and international institutions. It also recognises that soil stewardship cannot rely on individual virtue in a market that often rewards volume, uniformity and short-term margins.

A serious soil agenda would protect farmland from reckless conversion, support farmers during transitions, invest in local knowledge, strengthen land rights, reduce food waste and align subsidies with long-term ecological function. It would also treat erosion and food security as linked public risks, rather than separate files in separate ministries.

Soil degradation is sometimes described as a crisis beneath the surface. That is accurate, but incomplete. The consequences are above ground: in food prices, drought vulnerability, damaged rivers, weakened rural economies and shrinking biodiversity. Treating soil as a public good does not mean romanticising farming or rejecting technology. It means recognising that civilisation depends on a thin, living layer that markets alone have not adequately protected.

Further information:

* Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, relevant for global evidence on land, soil, water, agriculture and food security. https://www.fao.org/home/en

* United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, relevant for international policy on land degradation, desertification, drought and restoration. https://www.unccd.int

* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relevant for scientific assessment of the links between land, climate change, food security and sustainable development. https://www.ipcc.ch

* World Resources Institute, relevant for research on food systems, land restoration, climate resilience and sustainable resource use. https://www.wri.org

* IUCN, relevant for work on ecosystem restoration, biodiversity, nature-based solutions and land management. https://www.iucn.org