SILOtoSOIL: Reflections on the SocEnv Soils and Stones project

The Soils and Stones project is an interdisciplinary initiative led by Society for the Environment (SocEnv), bringing together experts and organisations to promote better protection and management of soils and stones. Founded in 2019, the project aims to improve recognition of the vital ecosystem services soils provide by sharing knowledge, developing guidance, influencing policy, and encouraging good practice across sectors.

The project continues to grow through volunteer involvement and activities including government consultation responses, research publications, and event speaking. New volunteers with environmental professional body membership are welcome, with CEnv registration desirable but not essential.

Soils and Stones is led by Martin Ballard CEnv CMgr FISEP. He chairs the CIWM Built Environment Strategic Experts Group for Construction, Demolition & Excavation Resource Efficiency and Waste and represents them on the CLC Green Construction Board. He was recognised by peer nomination for his environmental sustainability leadership in the ENDS Power List 2023.

Bea Gilbert: Soils and Stones is guided by ten Principles. What was the conceptualisation process for these? Over the course of the project so far, are there any that have revealed themselves as particularly useful or important for the ambitions of your work?

Martin Ballard: I’ll begin with some context for how the Principles came to fruition. In early 2019 I'd met up by chance with the Society for the Environment’s Chief Executive, Dr Emma Wilcox. In conversation, I mentioned a pet grievance – there was lots of information amongst the member bodies for the Society about air and water, but very little about the important stuff under our feet. 

This sparked more conversations within SocEnv and with board members, and I was asked what we could do about it. So, I put together a plan of how like-minded Chartered Environmentalists might come together and chew the fat about soils. And I was absolutely blown away. With my employer at the time, the largest room I could get had 12 seats. I thought I might fill eight; and then 32 Chartered Environmentalists came forward. It was a broad spread of professionals dealing with every aspect of soil and land management, which led to some cracking conversations. We started to plan together, which led to our first report that we launched in 2021, edited by Paul Dumble. From the process of thinking and discussing, with core teams working on their respective areas of interest, it really brought to the fore some common issues that we all had. 

Firstly, irrespective of the land type and the soil type, it was being misused, misunderstood, and there was no firm policy for soils in any regard – and certainly no primary legislation, which rather remains the case today. It's not just agricultural soil or horticultural soil. It is also natural soils, forestry soils, built environment and garden soils, urban, and peri-urban soils. These take generations to form but can be destroyed in mere moments. There is not one unique type, but they all have the same principal need of a risk-based approach for soil health and soil ecology. We knew that if we were going to have a conversation with policy makers, we probably ought to frame it in a way that helped them understand good practices for managing different soil types. We also wanted to connect the expertise of practitioners with policymakers to help make the right legislative decisions; not only to overcome all the barriers present between the different land management sectors, but to fundamentally provide the right incentives for good soil management. 

Through the process of meeting, we made some fantastic connections. Colleagues were drawn into the discussion, and the ten Principles started to form, led by Rob Earl CEnv, with input from many peers. We batted the principles around for a year or so before publishing them in 2023, and enjoyed some good feedback. It started another level of engagement and another level of audience, and led on to the Society's involvement with the soil health inquiry in 2023. That inquiry was particularly timely and enabled us to talk about the ten Principles, which fall broadly into economic and circular economy thinking. 

The ten Principles of the Soils and Stones project (SocEnv, 2023).

The first principle is around implementing practices that drive a sustainable economic growth situation. That's exactly the language of the government’s Circular Economy Growth Plan, expected any time now. In terms of language and thinking, we were very much paddling ahead of the wave, and found ourselves surfing it nicely when we got into the soil health inquiry. 

The second principle is around preserving, protecting and enhancing the value of soils. That word – ‘value’ – we discussed a great deal. Not only is there an economic valuation, but also a health valuation, social valuation, environmental and ecological valuations of soils. There is a thin veneer over our planet of topsoil – it ought to be about 30 centimetres of good quality soil that holds so much organic life and ecological value. It drives our habitats and the quality vegetation that we depend on for food, health, well-being and most importantly ecological life. Understanding that value is so important, and leads us to the third principle around promoting and enhancing the inherent value that soils have in the wider ecosystem services model. Since 2022 when we put these principles together, the capacity soil has for carbon retention, and for water retention to mitigate flood risk, is becoming better understood. 

Having teased out those three fundamental economic principles, we then dove into the common soil health and quality standards, exploring how we could effectively set a consistent approach for all soil types dependent on risk and application of land. Whether that's development and construction, or whether it's agricultural and horticultural, the standards are still very much applicable. From there, we went into areas around site-specific soil conditions and land quality: highly technical criteria that still need to be established.

The remaining four principles are around making sure there is a clear resource hierarchy. There’s need for financial metrics with a lifecycle approach for soil valuation, which enables market offsetting. The governance and standard around that is really important, because we're at risk of anybody setting a market without underlying standards or fundamental principles to counter loss of biodiversity, carbon, or food security. The ninth and the tenth principles are around harmonising legislation, regulation, and best practice. In the absence of primary legislation, we've at least got to make sure that we harmonise the valuation of soils within a common standard framework across those different sectors. 

Finally, as the tenth principle, we suggest natural and economic benchmark values that we can measure our progress and performance by, so that we do truly sustain the social, economic and environmental sustainability of soils. Of course, all these principles are very interconnected. 

Bea Gilbert: Would you say they're all on even pegging because of this interaction you mention?

Martin Ballard: Absolutely. I think each is dependent on the other and it would be very difficult to prioritise any. If I was to be pushed, I’d say that soil valuation would have to come out on top, just because of the economic models that we live by. I think if economists really understood the value of soil then they would understand the commercial, contractual and the legal protection that's needed.

Bea Gilbert: You mentioned the report you did in 2021, which identified system-wide failures in the way that soils are managed. Five years on, what would you say has shifted since that initial report? And what would an equal or greater amount of success look like over the next five years?

Martin Ballard: As Chartered Environmentalists, we recognised from the outset that we could share resources and good practice to bring a greater understanding and awareness. Beyond that, we also recognised that we're volunteers. We’re professionals. We're Chartered Environmentalists. We mostly have paid employment. What was amazing with the 32 or so Chartered Environmentalists – and many others that have come forwards since – is that everyone's played a part in generously sharing their time, and we've all learned together. We’ve come to a better collective understanding of soils from our respective experiences and the respective lenses that we look at life through. That is great. There's only so much we can do as individuals, but by collaborating, we teased out some of the bigger issues and opportunities that were rather beyond us, but that we needed to see as action from others – from government, from national institutions, or from sectors. That was the basis of the 50 actions we identified in the 2021 report. We were called to give oral and written evidence to the soil health inquiry (the first time I'd ever personally given oral evidence to a Select Committee inquiry), and it was a fantastic experience to be sitting in front of MPs and sharing our collective story of the concerns that we had for soils and what needed to happen.

The team’s reflection afterwards was that we probably ought to do a three-year review. In my experience, people tend to recall what they did three years ago, but beyond that it becomes increasingly difficult, because of other pressures and life’s pace. So we committed to producing triennial reports, explaining actions since the first report, and what we’d recognised as having progressed against those original 50 actions, based on a red-amber-green rating. Two years on from the first triennial review in 2024, we’re getting ready to start the Easter 2027 report, and once we've completed our reviews, we aim to publish that on World Environment Day 2027. And there's a good number of those flagged items that have moved to a green rating.
 
Many of the actions are tasks that we could do ourselves directly or in collaboration with our partners. There's also a good spattering of actions that are going to be really, really hard, and we might not see progress on those for a decade. What's amazingly encouraging, though, is that there's a good core bulk of actions that we’re beginning to see traction on. There are good discussions and partnership activity going on. We're getting to hear the right noises from Defra and their sister departments across the government. I really believe that this administration’s matrix management approach – a more collegiate, collaborative approach between departments – could help see a significant shift within this parliamentary period. I remain optimistic, but we shall have to see how that assessment looks in April of 2027.  

We are seeing and hearing more about soils in the media. The recent David Attenborough edition about gardens is fantastic. If we can understand how we as individuals, as employers, as land managers can each play our part, then there's a good chance that we can arrest the ecological catastrophe that could be on the horizon. There’s much to do given the challenges in the ground such as legacy impacts from persistent organic pollutants (POPs), chemicals, microplastics and the effect that climate change is and will have on our soils.

Bea Gilbert: It’s great to hear there are definitive marks of progression. A real reflection of your hard work. I thought your SILOtoSOIL Tool – launched in partnership with Midlands Land Events (MidLE) – was a great visualisation of all the stakeholders driving soil discussions. I know you mentioned your volunteers and all the people who've formed the Soils and Stones project. In terms of the way you've organised around the project itself, how can such an interdisciplinary project built on volunteers stay resilient to difficulties? Variables like changes in contributors’ capacities, disagreements that may arise, or any other challenges that are built into the structural running of Soils and Stones?

Martin Ballard: It's about breaking the size of the challenge into manageable chunks, so that individuals can take a personal lead on their continued professional development and achieve their potential. In any Chairship role, one must help ensure that those around the table have their voice heard, making sure that their views, strengths and areas of real passion come to the fore, and allowing them to lead on those areas with colleagues of a similar view.

Over the last few years, we’ve surveyed colleagues’ areas of interest, so that people can share concerns, opportunities, and strengths. We’ve then linked up those with similar areas of interest, creating small groups of two to five people. This has enabled ownership over a part of the report, or over specific outputs like the Soil Management Hierarchies (for Development Sites and in Rural Settings), led by Jonathan Atkinson CEnv, or the SILOtoSOIL Tool, led by Rebecca Hearn CEnv with colleagues at MidLE, both launched in 2025.

We have a ‘little and often’ pace that keeps the energy going and prevents overwhelm. It allows people the chance to give updates on their work areas, or to table something that they've seen or thought about that they'd like to get others’ opinions on. People are supportive and encouraging of ideas, and happy to build on and strengthen them. Those types of conversations have led to some tremendous papers and outputs. For example, the paper that David Hackett launched on the impacts of solar panels on soil. The mood music is that solar panels in fields are a terrible thing, and indeed it could be if it was all on very good agricultural land. But because of land degradation, not all land is fit for agriculture, and it takes 40 or 50 years for topsoil to get into a good state. What better way of allowing soil recovery whilst generating power over that period, as long as the installation is designed and built in the right way to prevent full shading? So, research snippets like this get raised. 

The SILOtoSOIL Tool really came about because of a desire to make sense of a huge array of different stakeholders for somebody who doesn't know where to begin. It includes people, interested parties, regulators, and their guidance documents, all laid out in a logical and navigable way. It led to a wonderful partnership that we've engaged in since the end of last year with the British Standards Institution. They have 300-odd standards, but not laid out in a way that allows effective use, unless one has deep knowledge of a particular standard. So, how does someone learn about these things? That question is proving really exciting, and we're in the process of partnering between organisations, enabling Chartered Environmentalists to really stand up and lead in small groups of interested parties, hopefully improving the accessibility of standards.

Bea Gilbert: What is at the top of your priority list or ‘wish list’ for actual regulation change? Particularly around delivering a functioning market for true soil value.

Martin Ballard: There's a dream of what might be possible and then there's a practical reality of how we might get there. I think practically it's too complicated for law-makers to really understand and advise on primary legislation for soil, because of different land ownership and land-use interests. It will be challenging to get to a place of primary legislation. There might be an approach within the National Planning Policy Framework and Land Use Framework legislation that may lend itself towards secondary legislation, or regulations rather than an Act. We will not hold on our efforts.

However, the standards for soil health and ecological value might be more technically palatable and achievable. Linking back to the value point, the necessary evil is that money drives everything that we do; unless there is a fundamental crash in the economic markets and we reestablish ourselves for a sustainable future that's more tripartite, I think the onus is on us to help translate the socio-environmental impacts of economically misvaluing soil. We are beginning to see some of that with the move towards regenerative farming in the last decade. You can see it when you walk the land and the river catchments, and there are people clearly benefitting from a regenerative approach, particularly when set against the cost of fertilisers. So communicating these impacts can be done – we’ve seen it happen over the last ten to 15 years with the uptick in solar and wind energy. 

We can achieve a circular economy, soil health, and socio- and environmental benefits without reducing land efficiency. There are a number of policy focus areas that I hope will come to bear, increasing the valuation of ecological soil conditions that also sustain the economic value of different land types.

As a closing note, it's just been so rewarding working with people from different backgrounds. I'm not a soil scientist. I blame my love for soil on watching David Bellamy on TV when I was five; he came out of the bushes with a handful of soil saying: "Wow, look at all this amazing stuff." And it just opened my mind's eye to the fun of that. There are so many amazing people that have been working hard in a very technically fraught area, and it's been great to bring in their minds and to strengthen their voices for soil.

To find out more, please contact the Soils and Stones project.