On Friday, May 8, 2026, the final day of the EGU26, I attended a Special Programme Group session of the Soil System Sciences (SSS) division on Facing the last policy challenges in the EU: How soil scientists can contribute to the demands for scientific evidence to support EU policies. The session brought together scientists, policymakers, and representatives from European institutions, including members of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Parliament (EP), to discuss one of the most significant recent developments in European soil policy: the EU Soil Monitoring and Resilience Law (SMRL).
In the session, it was immediately made clear that this is not a regulation concerned only with agriculture. Soil health is now recognised as a wider question about climate adaptation, biodiversity, carbon storage, human health, air pollution, and more. A matter connected to multiple policy priorities, which also makes it challenging to define in a single way, both politically and scientifically.
What’s interesting is that a proposal for EU-wide soil legislation was first adopted by the European Commission (EC) nearly two decades ago. After disagreements between Member States, however, it was withdrawn in 2014. The SMRL being implemented now is therefore not a sudden decision, but the result of a much longer process of political negotiation and scientific advocacy. Martin Hojsík reflected on the collaborative efforts that have helped push the legislation forward:
“…when official channels fail, it is civil society and informal networks of scientists that help keep things alive and moving forward…” said Martin Hojsík (MEP, Renew Europe, EP)
One of the law’s central objectives is to develop a harmonised framework for soil health monitoring. In practice, this means establishing monitoring systems that make soil data comparable across the EU (EC, 2023). The matter of harmonisation was frequently brought up during the session, with a central dilemma repeatedly emerging: how do we establish a framework that works for all? This poses a challenge particularly from a legal perspective, as the law must remain flexible enough to function across very different national and ecological contexts. Not to mention, monitoring itself is only the beginning. Europe already holds vast amounts of soil data, but the challenge lies in transforming that information into tools for decision-making.
This part of the discussion was particularly interesting for me because it connected directly to the practical reality of soil science. As an early-career soil scientist working with peatlands, I’m aware that European soils are not a single system, but a mosaic of very different environments. Soil health in a Mediterranean dryland is not the same thing as soil health in a boreal peatland. The climatic conditions, hydrology, nutrient cycles, and microbial communities are all different, just to begin with. The core issue is how soil functions vary enormously between regions.
So how do we decide what a defines a healthy soil? Should we focus on carbon budgets, biodiversity and belowground functioning, nutrient cycling, ecosystem services, or, perhaps, a combination of the above? And how do we compare all this data without overlooking the differences that make each soil system unique? During the session, I asked Claire Chenu of AgroParisTech and INRAE how such diverse soil data can realistically be harmonised across Europe. Chenu’s answer highlighted an important distinction: while monitoring systems may require shared indicators, descriptors, and measurement standards, the target values themselves cannot necessarily be universal across all soil types and land uses. As she explained:
“If we want to cover the whole of Europe, we need the same measurement frequency, depth, and descriptors across land uses. But the target values still need to be defined.” – Claire Chenu (AgroParisTech, INRAE)
The discussion repeatedly returned to the question of how to define thresholds and target values accurately. Speakers acknowledged that they cannot simply be transferred from one soil system to another, as the health of a given soil is ultimately defined by its ecological context, but also by what society expects it to provide. This is what makes defining “soil health” such a complex scientific and political challenge. It’s an exciting framework for action, but scientifically, it also risks becoming too broad unless it remains grounded in the actual functioning of different systems.
The implementation discussions also made clear that data harmonisation is not only a technical issue, but an institutional one as well. Austria was brought up as an example, as it already holds soil monitoring data from multiple federal states. However, the challenge lies in bringing those datasets together, harmonising them, and making them comparable over time. A strong emphasis was also placed on continuity: the speakers argued that the relationship between science and policy cannot be treated as a single workshop or consultation round. Instead, it must become an ongoing discussion. Scientists need time to become familiar with policy development, while policymakers in turn need time to understand how scientific evidence is produced, what its limitations are, and how uncertainty should be approached, as Chenu noted:
“We also need to improve how to communicate about uncertainty.” – Claire Chenu (AgroParisTech, INRAE)
For me, this was one of the most encouraging parts of the session. It was refreshing to hear uncertainty acknowledged honestly instead of treating it as failure. Soil systems are complex, and while clear categories and thresholds are required for policymaking, the discussion highlighted that the real challenge is not eliminating complexity but working with it. In other words, building frameworks that can be applied in practice while remaining flexible enough to evolve alongside growing scientific knowledge.
One interesting question that emerged was how scientists should engage in policymaking. The answer was not that every scientist must become a policy expert. Rather, the call was for stronger connections, better communication — also across scientific disciplines — and more active involvement where expertise is needed. The speakers reminded us that the scientific community should not underestimate its own relevance in this process, because good policy is built on scientific contribution. At the same time, the importance of scientific engagement should be more recognised in academia; after all, policy work is unfortunately not frequently rewarded in the same way as publications.
What stayed with me most by the end of the session was the sense that soil protection is not just about soil. It is about coordination, communication, and shared responsibility across institutions, disciplines, and countries. The SMRL represents a major political and scientific milestone, but its success will depend on the effectiveness of translating scientific results into policy decisions while accounting for soil diversity. For a soil scientist, diversity is not an abstract concept but an inherent part of system functioning. Any attempt to define “healthy soil” must leave room for ecological variation while still creating an actionable framework. That is the challenge ahead, and also the very reason this law matters: it depends on our collective effort.
