Reaching out from the soil-box in pursuit of soil security

Abstract

Soil security can only be achieved when the global soil resource is maintained and improved, requiring a reversal of current degradation processes. This demands a major effort by soil scientists in at least four directions by: (i) demonstrating the importance of soils in inter- and transdisciplinary programs focusing on food, water, climate, biodiversity and energy problems, which are environmental issues that are widely acknowledged to be important; (ii) focusing research on the seven soil functions to demonstrate the importance of soil for widely recognized Ecosystem Services (ES) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG); (iii) reframing reporting of soil studies by not only including technical data but embedding this in human-interest storylines, building on the deep emotional links between soil and man, and (iv) educating and involving knowledge brokers that can link science with societal partners not only during a given project but also in the preparatory and implementation phase. Scientists can only effectively participate in Communities of Practice when they have first properly organized their own affairs in Communities of Scientific Practice. Two case studies illustrated the proposed procedures, combining results of state-of-the-art quantitative models with a description of aspirations, concerns and frustrations of the various stakeholders involved, including farmers, regulators, citizens and entrepreneurs. The connectivity dimension of soil security was quite important here. Soil scientists would be well advised to return to their roots when field work was effectively coupled with laboratory studies. Basic research is and will remain crucial for the profession but should be better linked with tacit knowledge in an effective knowledge chain, working in both directions. Overall, reframing of the soil message is not only needed but also very well possible, requiring out-of-the-box thinking.

Key words:

• soil security dimensions
• knowledge brokers
• interdisciplinarity
• transdisciplinarity
• land evaluation

1. INTRODUCTION

The term Soil Security (McBratney et al. 2014) suggests a certain similarity with the well established term Food Security and this has raised questions because, obviously, soil cannot be consumed. The Soil Security Concept is, however, quite valuable to emphasize the need to:” Secure our soils” and what follows is based on this objective which has five dimensions: (i) capability; (ii) condition; (iii) capital; (iv) connectivity, and (v) codification (McBratney et al. 2014). There is reason for concern because even though the adverse effects of soil erosion and soil degradation have been long recognized and well documented, these processes still proceed at an alarming rate (e.g. Nkonya et al. 2011; Lal 2012). An estimated 12 billion ha’s of land are lost each year at a cost of $ 2.3 trillion. It appears that messages by the soil science community are not received by the policy arena as well as might be expected, as evidenced by the limited attention soils and soil conservation receives in international strategic environmental reports as reviewed by Bouma and McBratney (2013). More recently, relatively little attention was paid, at least initially, to soil conservation in formulating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) of the United Nations that will replace the Millennium Development Goals in 2015. An active lobbying effort has now resulted in mentioning of the importance of soil degradation in Goal 15 (see later Table 3). But the final listing of Goals will be produced in the Fall of 2015.

The issue as to why our message is not being received to our satisfaction has been discussed several times in the past (e.g. Tinker 1985; Wild 1989; McCracken 1987; Miller 1993; Nielsen 1987. By now we would be well advised to try to better understand why this descrepancy occurs, realizing that “securing soils” will depend on actions by a wide range of citizens, stakeholders, entrepreneurs, policy makers and others, and certainly not on soil scientists alone. Perhaps it is time to discuss the “reframing”of our professional messages, considering the major societal, and political changes of the 21th century that is rapidly changing due to the information and communication revolution(Bouma and McBratney 2013; Bouma 2015). When discussing “reframing,” attention will be paid to colleague scientists in adjacent professions and to stakeholders and policy makers. But first a review of developments in science and society that are likely to strongly affect soil science in future, focusing on ecosystem services (ES) and the identification of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), requiring inter- and transdisciplinary research approaches.

2. SOILS IN A BROAD SOCIETAL CONTEXT

Professional gatherings in congresses and symposia usually have a strong disciplinary character. This not only applies to soil science but to other adjacent disciplines, such as hydrology, agronomy, climatology, ecology and economics, as well. No doubt, excellent science is presented at such occasions. But while climate, food, water, biodiversity and energy (the: “BIG FIVE”) receive much attention in strategic, international environmental publications, this is less so with soil science, as mentioned above. Reframing soils, putting the topic in a wider societal context, is therefore advisable. Soils being part of ecosystems, emphasizing their role in providing ecosystem services, is a logical approach. Many papers have been published on ecosystem services (ES), including the role soils can play (e.g. De Groot et al. 2002; De Fries et al. 2004; Daniel et al. 2012; Hanson et al. 2012; Lal 2013; Dominati et al. 2014; Robinson et al. 2014). In a recent paper, Dominati et al. (2014) list 12 provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services with an important soil component (Table 1). Rather than distinguish “soil ecosystem services,” which might be confused with the general term: “ecosystemservices,” attention should be focused on contributions that soil science can make to general ecosystem services. In that context, the seven soil functions (SF), defined by CEC (2006) (Table 2) can play a useful role as they show substantial overlap with the services listed in Table 1. Exceptions are ES3, support for human infrastructures and animals and ES 4 flood mitigation which is not distinguished in the SF list. Comparing the ES with the SF list, ES 1 corresponds, for example, with SF 1, but there is an important difference, because providing food, wood and fiber requires much more than soils input. Properties of plants, occurrence of pests and diseases, hydrology, and climate have major impacts and so does the socio-economic context in which production takes place. Interdisciplinary research is therefore needed to obtain relevant expressions for ES1. SF1 defines the soil contribution. Because ES1 is so complex, simplifications have been introduced separating aspects that can, in principle, be affected by management (such as occurrence of pests and diseases and fertilization) from aspects that are a given fact (such as hydrology and climate). Computer simulations for SF1 have therefore been made by using standardized climate and crop data, by assuming lack of pests and diseases and optimal fertilization. Thus, water-limited yields are obtained (e.g. Bouma et al. 1998), that are a major contribution toward estimates for ES1. Similar comparisons can be made between the other corresponding ES and SF entities and in all cases the SF contribution to the ES function is substantial. This demonstrates the crucial role of soils when providing ecosystem services, not by focusing on soils as such but by using the phraseology of ecosystem services that is familiar to non-soil scientists. Also, the:“BIG FIVE” are reflected in the 12 ecosystem services being listed in Table 1 with the possible exception of energy, that has more indirect relationships.

Table 1 Ecosystem services (ES) with an important soil component (Dominati et al. 2014)

Provisioning services

1.Provision of food, wood and fiber.

2.Provision of raw materials.

3.Provision of support for human infrastructures and animals.

Regulating services

4.Flood mitigation

5.Filtering of nutrients and contaminants

6.Carbon storage and greenhouse gases regulation

7.Detoxification and the recycling of wastes

8.Regulation of pests and disease populations

Cultural services

9. Recreation

10.Aesthetics

11.Heritage values

12.Cultural identity

Table 2 The seven soil functions (SF) of EU (2006)

1.	biomass production, including agriculture and forestry
2.	storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water
3.	biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes
4.	physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities
5.	source of raw material
6.	acting as Carbon pool
7.	archive of geological and archeological heritage

Still, coupling ES to SF is inadequate to articulate the societal role of soils because the environment represents only one aspect of the societal arena. The necessary broader context is provided by the Sustainable Development Goals (SGD’s) that are currently being defined by the UN for the period 2015–2030 as a successor to the Millennium Development Goals. At this point in time, 17 goals have been defined (Table 3) but the listing is still subject to diplomatic negotiations. Avoiding unnecessary detail, goals 2, 6, 12, 13 and 15 have clear relations with ES, as discussed above, and therefore with the corresponding SF categories. Initially, soils were not considered in the goals. The original version of goal 15 listed only ecosystems, while the revised listing of 19 July 2014 mentions: “..to combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation…” Even though most SDG’s are very broad, vague and wordy, they are recognized by non soil scientists and policy makers. Making an effort to also frame our research results in terminology of the SDG’s will make our work accessible to a large group of colleague scientists, stakeholders and policy makers that would without this type of framing remain unaware of our work and its societal relevance.

Table 3 The “Sustainable Development Goals” formulated by the UN for the period 2015–2030 (status July, 2014)

1.	End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2.	End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
3.	Ensure healthy lives and promote well being for all ages.
4.	Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote life-long learning opportunities for all
5.	Achieve gender equality and empower women and girls.
6.	Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
7.	Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
8.	Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth,full and productive employment and decent work for all
9.	Build resilient infrastructure and promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.
10.	Reduce inequality within and between countries
11.	Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
12.	Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13.	Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
14.	Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.
15.	Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably managed forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
16.	Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
17.	Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

3. THE INTERDISCIPLINARY ARENA

Framing soils in the context of ES and SDG implies interaction with other scientific disciplines because, obviously, they are not determined by the impact of soils alone. This is, however, easier said than done. Hydrology, climatology, ecology, agronomy and engineering are all tightly organized disciplines with their own professional organizations, conferences, journals and internal networks, just like soil science. Just joining these professional organizations is hardly an option so other ways have to be found to create interaction that is not only meaningful for both partners but also important because currently soil is poorly represented in modeling activities of these disciplines. For example, Bouma et al. (2011a) and Droogers and Bouma (2014) showed that many hydrological models for watersheds hardly contain soil data or use only highly generalized data. This also applies to the other disciplines and originates from the fact that simulation models can only present a highly generalized picture of highly complex ecosystems. Simplifications have to be made therefore and simplifying its own discipline is an almost impossible challenge for any scientist with the result that disciplines that do not take part in the modeling effort tend to be simplified instead. This appears to be the fate of soil science. But a simple suggestion to join interdisciplinary modeling teams is not realistic. One is only accepted as a new member in a team when input being offered is considered to be of interest, because the natural tendency is to restrict the number of team members as complications tend to increase exponentially as membership increases. A pro-active approach is therefore needed. One possibility is run models ourselves with and without soil data to demonstrate the difference. Such studies are, to my knowledge, not being made and may also produce unintended results because other factors than soil factors may be more important in certain settings. That would, of course, provide very useful information putting soils input in context. A perhaps more profitable pro-active and rather pragmatic approach is to promote studies that focus on a particular people-oriented societal problem, frame it in terms of ES and SDG and aim for focused cooperation with capable colleagues in one or more of the various other disciplines, mentioned above, that are interested to cooperate. This approach was followed in the two case studies to be presented later.

Unfortunately, to some soil scientists the term interdisciplinarity still only refers to cooperation between soil phycisists, – chemists, -biologists and pedologists. The profession cannot anymore afford this inward looking attitude and there are fortunately an increasing number of examples where soil scientists move out of their subdisciplinary boxes.

4. HOE ABOUT THE POLICY MAKERS?

Soils do not generate the same response in policy circles as do food, water, climate, biodiversity and energy. Dr. Luca Montanarella of the Joint Research Center (JRC) of the EU, explained why the EU Soil Protection Strategy of 2006 (CEC, 2006) was not followed by a legally binding guideline, that was earlier realized for water, biodiversity and climate. Our distinctions between land, soil, earth and dirt are too subtle for non soil scientists and for them it all is: “land.” Land is a highly emotional concept with deep roots into individual and national identity. Many wars have been fought about its possession in history. In 2006 a legally binding EU soil guideline was supported by 20 out of 28 EU countries but some countries, among them Germany and the Netherlands with an excellent reputation in terms of environmental management, were deadset against it. The very idea that regulators of other countries could influence decisions on their land use was unacceptable. This decision has been interpreted to mean that these countries did not recognize the importance of soils. The truth is quite different: they feel that soils are so important and so unique to a given country that they do not want anyone else to meddle with them. It is impossible to counteract irrational, emotional arguments with rational ones and this presents a basic problem for the science community because rationality is the basis of their existance. So continuing to “prove” that: “soils are important” is not effective. Other ways of communication have to be found to address the policy community and a link with widely known concepts such as Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development Goals, as well as following bottom-up procedures focusing on concerns of stakeholders, may be a better way. When voters are happy, so will be the politicians. This bottom-up approach will be illustrated in two case studies to be broadly described in the next section, with reference to more detailed source publications.

But also the presentation of soil information in the past can be criticized. There has been a tendency to topdown define “suitabilities”of soils for a wide variety of land uses, while mentioning but not documenting the major effect of other environmental and socio-economic factors (e.g. FAO, 2007; Bouma et al. 2012). Droogers and Bouma (2014) described case studies from the Aral sea, the Middle East and Kenya, illustrating different roles of science as problem recognizer, moderator between perspectives, advocate and problem solver. So rather than provide judgments, science can more effectively act as a flexible intermediary between society and government. Also in the policy context, scientists have to move out of their own “box”.

5. CASE STUDY 1: CRADLE-TO-CRADLE DAIRY FARMING IN THE NORTHERN FRISIAN WOODLANDS (NFW), THE NETHERLANDS

Farmers in a dairy cooperative in the Northern Frisian Woodlands (NFW) have worked together since the 1990s to achieve a reduction of the Nitrogen (N) surplus on their farms which is the difference between the N input, particularly N applied by fertilizers, minus N that leaves the farm in the form of various products. The direct reason for their cooperation was an environmental law requiring injection of liquid manure as a means to reduce emission of ammonia, which – when deposited on adjacent nature areas – had adverse environmental effects. They were used to spread their manure at the surface, using their own equipment, as part of their regular farm management. Injection required large machines run by contractors and this represented loss of control by the farmer because contractors had to serve several farmers in a limited amount of time. Moreover, they felt that the machines caused soil compaction while they feared that injection would be harmful for the soil fauna. Supported by researchers, they developed “new” manure with 25% less N (45 g total N /kg dry matter vs. 56 g and 10% less NH4-N. C/N was 8.0 vs. 6.4). They reached these lower N values by growing most of their feed, rather than buying soya from South America. Field experiments elsewhere showed that this liquid waste application procedure was successful when water was applied after surface application of this “new”manure (Sonneveld et al. 2008). However, regulating agencies did not accept this procedure and several farmers were sentenced in court paying fines of thousands of euro’s, making it a serious affair. Still no decision has been made after 20 years and a group of farmers in NFW is still allowed to apply their manure at the surface as part of a temporal experimental permit. This was achieved by a motion in the Dutch Parliament, submitted on July 4, 2013, that was supported by all parties (!) at the end of a succesful lobbying campaign by the farmers, with no involvement of the research community. An analysis of the environmental regulations showed that little supporting data were available for these regulations. Emphasis was on emission of ammonia, while deposition in nature areas was the problem to be solved. No measurements on deposition were made. Only non-validated computer simulations were available (Bouma 2011). Farmers were rightly frustrated in not receiving serious reactions to their relevant questions, also because the research community was divided in their response.

As time went by farmers broadened the scope of their activities, emphasizing what could be called a form of environmentally friendly “cradle-to-cradle” farming with closed nutrient cycles, postponed grasscutting in spring to protect young birds and maintaining the grass vegetation rather than plow and reseed the grassland every 5 years as was a common practice. The latter resulted in significant loss of organic matter. These practices were particularly relevant because the NFW is a national landscape with a high cultural but also geologic value, as remnants of a glacial period are found. Relatively small, elongated fields, separated by hedges (Fig. 1) have been here since the middle ages. Hedges have a high biodiversity. Modern farming calls for rationalization, very large fields and herds. Clearly, this would devastate the area and the farmer cooperative is therefore a strong and successful advocate for landscape preservation. But this is only possible when farming is commercially feasible. A study was made, therefore, using Life Cycle Analysis, comparing eight cradle-to-cradle (CTC) farms with eight comparable farms following more traditional management (that is already quite different from management of a decade ago because farmers have many contacts and adopt what they consider successful management measures) (Dolman et al. 2014; De Vries et al. 2015). Some major conclusions follow from Table 4. Average farm income was 40% higher of the CTC farms, although differences were not significant because of the very large variation among values of both categories. Higher incomes were due to lower costs: buying less external cattle feed and chemical fertilizer and no expenditures for contractors. Energy use was lower: less chemical fertilizer, no contractor involvement and no reseeding after plowing. Calculated emissions of N to the environment were lower. The organic matter content was significantly higher for the CTC farms which means that soil quality improved. So, in fact, a win-win-win condition is created: gains for the environment, the soil and the farmer.

Table 4 Some selected results from the LCA analysis, comparing CTC farms with a control group of more traditional farms (from Dolman et al. 2014)

Energy use:	5.1 vs 5.9 MJ/kg milk	=−15%
Application chem.N fertilizer	128 vs 146 kg/ha	=−12%
Calculated nitrate leaching:	5.1 vs 7.0 kgN/ha/jr	=−30%
Calculated ammonia emission:	30 vs 35 kgN/ ha/jr	=−15%
Soil Organic Matter:	186 vs 156 ton C/ha	=+20%
Average farm income	8.3 vs 5.9 euro/100 kg milk	=+40%

Figure 1 Aerial photograph of part of the National Landscape Northern Frisian Woodlands with characteristic, relatively small, elongated fields separated by hedges with a high biodiversity.

The seven soil functions all apply, except for SF 5 and that translates directly and significantly into the corresponding ES items. Of the SDG’s, 2, 6, 12, 13 and 15 apply. Also the:“BIG FIVE” are covered, including energy. SF, ES, the BIG FIVE and SDG are all defined in terms of separate entities, suggesting unintentionally that these are separate items. But this case study shows that they are all strongly interrelated. This can be well shown by presenting a storyline, where every item has its place. The storyline in this case is extended by including the human interest story of farmers struggling with environmental legislation, rigid regulators, courtcases, disagreeing scientists, effective lobbying etc. Thus, soil science is right at the heart of what moves people and examples, such as the NFW one, will convey this message effectively to the public and through them into the policy arena. The LCA study (Dolman et al. 2014) and the regional study by De Vries et al. (2015) present the scientific facts but lacks links with the ES and SDG’s as well as the human dimension. Still without these studies, those links could not have been made showing the importance of basic soil studies that can become more effective in the public domain when embedded in a broader context, as presented.

The Soil Security dimensions apply: the capability of the sandy soils involved (coarse loamy, siliceous, mesic Plagganthreptic Alorthod, according to Soil Survey Staff 1998) is somewhat limited because sands are by origin nutrient poor and drought sensitive. The condition is significantly different when comparing soils at the CTC farms with the controls, as discussed. Thus the capital differs as well. The connectivity dimension was very important here by the activities of the knowledge broker, the late Dr. Marthijn Sonneveld, who injected the right type of knowledge at the right time and place to the right person in the right way (see Bouma et al, 2011b). This took a lot of time and was not alltogether successful. But without his continued effort the links between farmers-regulators-citizens would not have been what they are now. Finally, the codification dimension is a problematic one. Existing regulations are poorly defined and follow poor logic. Farmers and citizens receive no answers to reasonable questions and there is no obvious effort to provide clarity even though basic problems have been identified 3 years ago (Bouma 2011).

6. CASE STUDY 2: PROMOTING SOIL CONSERVATION BY GREEN WATER CREDITS IN THE UPPER TANA BASIN, KENYA

Techniques to combat soil degradation and soil erosion are available (e.g. WOCAT, 2007) but they are not widely applied. This raises the basic question about the knowledge paradox: why is so much of scientific knowledge- and in this case soil science expertise- not applied in the real world? (e.g. Bouma 2010). One way to overcome this problem is introduction of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): “money talks!”. Successful efforts have been reported (Wunder 2005; Pagiola et al. 2005; Porras et al. 2008; Tengberg et al. 2012; Schomers and Matzdorf 2013). For a Kenyan project, ISRIC (the World Data Center) and FUTUREWATER (both in Wageningen, the Netherlands) devised a special type of PES, called Green Water Credits (GWC). Green Water is water in the unsaturated zone in the soil. Less erosion implies more soil infiltration of water that can either be absorbed by plants roots or flow downwards to the groundwater aquifer, if it exists, where it becomes Blue Water with zero or positive pressure as water in rivers, lakes and in the sea. The important role of Green Water is not yet fully recognized. It forms the largest freshwater body in the world. An estimated 60% of precipitation becomes Green Water and 40% becomes Blue. Of that 60%, 5% is absorbed by vegetation or crops and the remaining water percolates downwards following the flowlines in the landscape (Sposito 2013; Rogers 2008).

In the Upper Tana basin in Kenya, located near Nairobi, the capital, several large artificial lakes are used to store water for water supply and electricity generation for Nairobi. In the upper ranges of the basin coffee and tea are grown where erosion is prominent (Fig. 2). Erosion is followed by deposition downslope and silting up of the reservoirs is a serious concern for water- and electricity companies. Green Water Credits implies payments to upslope farmers by these companies with the objective to realize effective soil conservation practices that, in turn, will extend the life of the reservoirs. Obviously, convincing these companies to pay farmers is very difficult because the idea is quite new to them and they require quantitative studies supporting claims being made. Based on an available soil map, that was transformed in a map of Hydraulic Response Units, the hydrology of the basin was simulated with the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model, focusing on 11 well established soil conservation scenario’s (WOCAT 2007) (Hunink et al. 2012, 2013; Kauffman et al. 2014). Figure 3 shows the georeferenced simulated results of the effects of the ridging scenario in terms of the expected decline of erosion rates (and a corresponding increase of Green Water) as compared with a baseline scenario describing actual conditions. In addition, the economic WEAP (Water Evaluation and Planning System) model was used to estimate benefits versus costs of the 11 scenario’s, indicating that three of the 11 scenario’s, including ridging, had benefit/cost ratio’s higher than three. This was attractive enough, in principle, for the water- and electricity companies to proceed with the plan and negotiations are still in progress to arrive at an operational system.

Figure 2 Relatively steep slopes in the upper part of the Tana Basin in Kenya where tea and coffee are grown. Erosion is a problem here because of limited soil conservation measures.

Figure 3 The Upper Tana basin in Kenya with calculated erosion reduction when introducing soil conservation measures. Eleven measures were tested. Results for ridging are shown here.

In this study, SF were relevant with less emphasis on functions 4, 5 and 7 and so were the corresponding ES. Again, as in the NFW study, the SDG’s 2,6,12,13 and 15 are relevant, but also 7, 11 and 17 because the relation between countryside and city is obvious as is the global partnership as evidenced by the joint authors of the cited publications. Of course, in contrast to the NFW study that covered a completed study, covering some 15 years, the Upper Tana study is still in an exploratory stage and the SF, ES and SDG’s represent only what might be expected when the program is executed successfully. As in NFW, the storyline is important dealing here not only with farmers and affected citizens but also with industrial partners. This is not yet another study where erosion is studied with models as an isolated problem. Still, the erosion and economic studies by Hunink et al. (2012) and Kauffman et al. (2014) were crucial to be able to present a realistic storyline. The Kauffman et al. (2014) paper tried to combine the technical information with the overall storyline and this turned out to be problematic for several reviewers of international technical journals but not for the journal where the paper was published.

The soil security dimensions also apply well to this case study but, again, in terms of what might be expected. Capability varies widely because of the large variety of soils in the basin. The soil map is not shown in this paper but is available upon request. The condition, and therefore also the capital, is not optimal because erosion is a real problem in the basin, even though there is a lot of variation among subareas. As in the NFW case connectivity was very important in the initial phase of the program where Sjef Kauffman (ISRIC) acted as an effective knowledge broker (see also Kauffman et al. 2014). There is some doubt as to whether the program will be completed because Kauffman retired and an active knowledge broker is dearly missed. Finally, codification appears rather academic in this case as there is as yet no effective environmental legislation.

7. WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM THE CASE STUDIES?

The following observations can be made:

1. Both studies used state-of-the-art research techniques to derive quantitative information that was essential to characterize a cradle-to-cradle farming system (NFW) and the benefit vs. cost implications of introducing soil conservation practices (Tana). Qualitative, descriptive procedures would have been inadequate and not convincing to stakeholders or policy makers, who require “hard”data (even, admittedly, when obtained with “soft”models). Techniques applied reached beyond technical matters and included socio-economic aspects, either directly through a Life Cycle Analysis (NFW) or through a sequential combination of hydrological (SWAT) and cost/benefit (WEAP) models. Ultimately, attractive financial implications of whatever is proposed will often determine whether or not adaptation may be expected: “money talks!.” However, the NFW study showed that “soft” cultural and heritage values, that are hard to express in monetary terms, can also be a motivating force to realize sustainable production systems.

2. Both case studies produced “hard” environmental data that, as such, is usually the type of results reported in international scientific journals. In fact, the cited NFW paper belongs to this category.The description of the case studies in this paper embedded these results in a broader human-interest story, which was directly included in the cited Tana paper by Kauffman et al. (2014). This movement outside the soil-box is likely to contribute to a better understanding and appreciation of outsiders as to the role of soil science in dealing with environmental problems.

3. Another way to move out-of-the-box is to show relationships of soils with Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Development Goals and the BIG FIVE, as discussed, using the seven soil functions to articulate functionality. The studies clearly demonstrated that even though each of the ES, SDG and the BIG FIVE listings suggested 7,17 and 5 separate items, respectively,they are clearly interlinked within the ES and SDG and between the BIG FIVE. Presenting results of a study in terms of a storyline, rather than in terms of seperate items can emphasize this important observation.

4. Soil security dimensions could be identified specifically for NFW and in terms of what might be expected for Tana. The connectivity dimension was particularly important in both studies as it related to the crucial actions of knowledge brokers.

5. The two case studies were initiated differently. Farmers took the initiative in NFW and maintained it, while asking for advice and interacting with scientists. In Tana, scientists acted in a pro-active manner by seeing an opportunity and working hard to realize it. As regular funding levels decrease, this pro-active procedure is likely to offer the best opportunities for the future.

6. The reported two studies reflect the (limited) experience of the author. There are, no doubt, many other examples illustrating the same principles. The soil science profession would be well advised to publish such studies, not only focusing on technical aspects but including a socio-economic analysis and a human-interest component. Such stories are likely to improve the awareness of non soil scientists, citizens and policy makers alike about the importance of soils when studying environmental problems. It offers an alternative to emphasizing “the” importance of “the” soil from an exclusive inside-the-box soil perspective. Of course, a completed study like NFW is much more convincing than one that is still in progress, like TANA.

8. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The importance of contacts of scientists with various stakeholders and policy makers has, of course, already been emphasized by many (e.g. Bunders et al. 2010; Sayer et al. 2013). In this context, Communities of Practice (COP)have been proposed by social scientists (e.g. Gibbons et al. 1994). Wondering whether the soil science community was ready to face up to the task of communicating effectively with stakeholders, Bouma et al. (2008) suggested to first establish:“Communities of Scientific Practice” (CSP) including not only basic and interdisciplinary scientists but also knowledge brokers, that could establish: “Extension 2.0”, based on long-term joint learning in contrast to short-term linear transfer of knowledge as in traditional extension. Reaching out from a CSP to stakeholders would most likely result in a more successful COP than reaching out from a disjointed scientific congregation.

As funding sources decline, researchers are forced to continually generate new projects. This means in practice that obtaining funds or grants represents the major highlight of scientific life, as attention has already to be paid to generate new funds while the old project is still in progress. Many traditional research projects allow little time to contact stakeholders and policy makers in person before a new project starts, taking time unearthing their real concerns. Also, no time is available to follow up possible implementation of research results. One of the major conclusions of a large program on sustainable agriculture in the Netherlands was the need to allow much more time for any given research project and to involve knowledge brokers that should be partners in scientific teams (Bouma et al, 2011b). But knowledge brokers need to be educated and they should be offered bright future job perspectives, next to scientists that are judged by the number of publications in international refereed journals (e.g. Bouma 2015).

Emphasis on knowledge brokers and interaction processes could lead to the conclusion that more applied rather than basic research is needed in future. This is certainly not the intention but analyzing the two presented case study, we must conclude that researchers applied existing technology and know-how, or “legacy data”. Claims for funds focused on new research, which are frequently made by scientists, are increasingly rebuffed by policy makers wondering why existing expertise cannot be used to solve existing problems. This aspect needs attention of the science community, including soils, requiring inter- and transdisciplinary research that unequivocally demonstrates that available data can work but that generation of new data would significantly improve results (e.g. Bouma et al. 2015). Any profession will die when it is not fed with basic research, widening its frontiers. But funds for basic research are not generated as easily as in the past. What appears to have lost in soil science is the link between basic knowledge on the one hand and tacit knowledge on the other, as expressed by a broken knowledge chain. Reconnecting the chain has advantages both ways: basic research is fed with real-life problems, while soil practicioners broaden and deepen their expertise. Soil science is in a highly favorable position here as we only have to go back to our roots where soil surveyors walked in the field, communicating with land users and scientists in the laboratory, starting (and still continuing) with soil fertility and soil chemistry, gradually widening attention to soil physics, – biology and – engineering.

Going back to our roots and opening the soil box by framing our activities in terms of Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development Goals offers bright future perspectives for the soil science discipline because all land- related environmental and socio-economic issues are deeply influenced by soil behavior. We should only show it better by reframing the way we communicate. Opening the soil box hardly involves any risks but, rather to the contrary, offers very exciting opportunities.