Earth’s Fragile Skin: Approaches to fostering agroecology and safeguarding topsoil

Lucinda Gibson, AgriFutures Australia, 2024 World Food Forum Fellow

Executive Summary

Australia's topsoil is rapidly depleting due to unsustainable agricultural practices, urbanisation, and climate change, threatening food security, biodiversity, and economic stability. Soil contributes approximately $63 billion annually to Australia’s economy (Jackson et al. 2018), yet 39% of soil organic carbon has been lost between 1860 and 1990 (Grace et al. 2006). Globally, up to 50% of topsoil has been degraded over the past 150 years (Pimentel 2006), undermining ecological services such as nutrient cycling, water filtration, carbon sequestration, and food production (Grace Post & Hennessy 2006).

Current national policies do not adequately address the urgent need to safeguard topsoil. This report recommends introducing a National Agroecology Soil Health Certification to support a transition to agroecological practices. Agroecology is a holistic, science-based approach integrating sustainability, local knowledge, and social equity to restore soil, increase resilience, and enhance biodiversity. This policy will offer payments to farmers as an incentive to improve topsoil health. It aims to target 25% of cropping land, approximately 7.25 million hectares, by 2030. In doing so, the proposed policy directly tackles the identified challenges of topsoil depletion by incentivising sustainable land management, restoring soil function, and strengthening the long-term resilience of Australia’s food systems and economy.

Problem Identification

Australia’s topsoil degradation is a critical issue directly affecting agricultural productivity and ecosystem health (Macray & Montgomery 2023; Prasad & Pietrzykowski 2020). As soil supports nearly all food production (Kopittke et al. 2019), its ongoing depletion threatens food security, economic stability, and biodiversity. Soil degradation in Australia is driven by intensive farming, synthetic inputs, and land conversion, which accelerate erosion and nutrient loss. Climate change further exacerbates soil depletion by reducing organic carbon and water retention. The exclusion of Indigenous land management practices, such as fire-stick farming, has also limited the use of sustainable techniques that enhance long-term soil health (Nikolakis et al., 2022). Soil degradation extends beyond soil organic carbon (SOC) loss, affecting water retention, nutrient cycling, and microbial diversity, which underpin long-term agricultural viability and ecosystem resilience (McKenzie et al. 2017). 

Context

Background

The National Soil Strategy (2021) provides Australia’s first coordinated framework to value, manage, and improve soil health through collaboration between governments, industry, and land managers. However, it remains largely focused on soil stewardship. To truly transform topsoil health and the broader agrifood system, future policy must move beyond stewardship to embed a farmer-led, systems-based approach that addresses the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainable food production.

National programs such as the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme have been criticised for prioritising carbon accounting over tangible soil health outcomes (Williams 2020; Morton 2024). The ACCU Scheme is a voluntary government program that rewards projects reducing or storing carbon by issuing tradeable credits, with one ACCU representing one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent avoided or stored. However, by focusing on carbon as a single metric, these schemes overlook broader solutions required for long-term topsoil restoration, creating persistent gaps between policy ambition and practical implementation. Other more promising efforts include the North East Catchment Management Authority's 2022-23 Soil Health Community Grant and the National Soil Monitoring Program (NSMP), a $21.6 million initiative under the Climate-Smart Agriculture Program. The NSMP aligns with the National Soil Action Plan and collaborates with CSIRO to establish national soil health indicators.

Topsoil health plays a critical role in climate mitigation. Australia's landmass represents a significant potential CO₂ source if degraded (Grace, Post & Hennessy 2006), with climate impacts amplifying this vulnerability (Rubio et al. 2024). Soils store more carbon than the atmosphere and vegetation combined (Heikkinen et al. 2022). As such, soil degradation accelerates the impacts of climate change, leading to environmental insecurity, reduced water availability, increased bushfire intensity, and severe socioeconomic consequences.

Continued degradation is driven by conventional practices such as fertiliser overuse, pesticide application and tillage, which maximise short-term yields (Myers & Wilson 2023). Although sustainable alternatives exist, farmers face adoption barriers including cost, labour, and uncertainty over productivity impacts (Robertson et al. 2022). Targeted policy intervention is needed to enable transition to regenerative, soil-friendly agriculture.

Land management by Traditional Owners

Traditional Owner land management significantly promotes carbon sequestration and ecosystem health. "Cool burning" or cultural burning involves controlled, low-intensity fires to carefully manage vegetation (Yates et al. 2023). These fires regenerate native grasses, reduce flammable fuel loads, and encourage biodiversity by creating balanced environments. By reducing large, uncontrolled wildfires that release enormous carbon amounts, these practices effectively lower emissions while promoting vegetation that captures atmospheric carbon.

Through fire management techniques, soil health is enhanced. Careful burning increases soil moisture retention, reduces density, and contributes organic matter benefiting plant and microbial life. These factors collectively promote carbon sequestration, as healthy, diverse ecosystems naturally capture and store more carbon (Nikolakis, Welham, & Greene 2022).

The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) project exemplifies traditional fire management impact. Operating across 28,000 square kilometres, WALFA seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalents annually by reintroducing cultural fire management practices (Wilman 2013). Other Traditional Owner practices, such as seasonal harvesting, waterway manipulation, and diverse plant utilisation, contribute to ecosystem health, fostering resilient environments that support carbon emission reduction and climate change mitigation (Reardon-Smith 2023).

What is Agroecology? Farmers increasingly recognise the value of regenerative practices, adopting site-specific methods to restore soil health and ecosystem function (Bhagani 2023). Agroecology, grounded in principles of equity, justice, and sustainability, is defined by the FAO’s elements of diversification, co-creation of knowledge, efficiency, resilience, and responsible governance (Scherf 2018; Jonas & Gressier 2024), to name a few. ItThese principles encompasses practices such as cover cropping, Firestick farming, intercropping, insect-based waste recycling (Mannaa et al. 2023), ecosystem service payments, Traditional Owner land access, gender equity, and market recognition of agroecological produce. While schemes such as Regenerative Organic Certified® have expanded organic farming, they do not fully embed agroecological principles (Cortese 2020; Gamage et al. 2023). By contrast, agroecology offers a holistic model that integrates environmental, social, and economic values within farming systems (Tittonell et al. 2022; McDonald, Millicer & Rako 2022; Paul et al. 2023). Agroecology Policy in the US The US 2018 Farm Bill introduced the Soil Health and Income Protection Pilot Program (SHIPP), incentivising farmers to remove less productive land from production in exchange for annual rental payments (US Sustainability Alliance 2021). The US Department of Agriculture encourages adopting soil health-promoting practices instead, such as low-cost perennial cover cropping, a model adaptable to Australia's agricultural needs. Rental payments under SHIPP averaged US$18 per acre (Economic Research Service 2018).

The 2018 Farm Bill expanded the Conservation Reserve Program to allow for up to 50,000 acres to be eligible for SHIPP, offering farmers in the prairie pothole region a short-term, flexible land-idling option to improve soil, water, and wildlife resources (Perdue, 2019). The bill had a budgeted cost of US$428 billion over 2019-2023 (Economic Research Service 2025; Congressional Research Service 2019).

100 farmers implementing soil health practices under this bill for at least five years were interviewed, revealing dramatic results. Two-thirds (67%) reported higher yields, and 97% reported greater crop resilience to extreme weather, particularly during recent droughts (Wilder & Lederer, 2023).

Policy Options

Option 1. National Agroecology Soil Health Certification (NASH)

The NASH certification financially rewards farmers for soil regeneration and supports transitions to agroecological practices. Modelled on SHIPP, participation is voluntary, with annual payments based on acreage managed under agroecological principles defined by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).

Pros (+): Incentivises agroecological farming and carbon sequestration by rewarding positive land stewardship. Recognises existing efforts, supports diverse regional practices, and raises consumer awareness through transparent certification.Cons (-): Voluntary uptake may limit impact compared to regulatory measures. Success depends on accurate digital soil mapping (computer models and data such as satellite imagery, climate, and terrain to predict soil properties and create maps for unsampled areas) and consistent long-term monitoring, which may be challenging in some regions.Cost and Implementation ($): $220 million over four years: $180m for direct payments to farmers ($25/ha for ~25% of Australia’s cropland), $30m for local technical support, and $10m to establish a National Agroecology Certification Framework.

2. Bank Loans Reliant on Agroecology Framework

This policy incentivises agroecological farming by offering discounted loans for sustainable practices. Inspired by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation’s loan initiative - offering interest reductions of up to 1.15% for low-emission investments - this scheme extends similar financial support to land-based agroecological improvements (Boyce 2025; Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2025). It rewards practices such as diversification, soil regeneration, water management, and integrated pest control while reshaping agricultural finance to favour equity, resilience, and sustainability.

Pros (+): Encourages agroecological practices through financial incentives and aligns with existing sustainability finance models. Ensures compliance via on-site assessments and soil health monitoring. Cons (-): Non-compliance may create financial strain, exacerbating sector disparities. High initial investment may limit access for resource-constrained farmers. Cost and Implementation ($): $200 million in discounted loans over four years. Farmers require pre-approval on-site assessments to verify agroecological claims, with ongoing soil testing for compliance.

3. Traditional Owner–Led Knowledge Integration

 This policy provides targeted funding for Indigenous land managers and Aboriginal agricultural organisations to reassert stewardship across native bushland. Traditional Owner communities have long maintained landscapes through cultural burning, native food cultivation, and sustainable water management (Robertson et al. 2022). This initiative ensures these practices can continue with adequate resources, supporting national environmental and climate resilience strategies.

Pros (+): Revitalises Traditional Owner ecological knowledge and leadership while improving soil health, biodiversity, and drought resilience.

Cons (-): Practices like cultural burning are highly effective for native bushland but may have limited direct application to cropland. With only 1% of the agricultural workforce identifying as Indigenous (Department of Agriculture 2011), scaling participation requires sustained, long-term investment.

Cost and Implementation ($): $26 million over four years: $15m for First Nations-led pilot programs (on-ground activities, knowledge-sharing, workforce training) and $11m for monitoring and evaluation to ensure long-term impact.Policy recommendation

Policy Recommendation

This proposal recommends implementing the NASH Certification program, which will promote agroecological education, provide resources for sustainable practices, and support effective and holistic land management strategies. The NASH Certification will offer annual payments of $25 per hectare, funded by DAFF, as rewards for improving topsoil health. An independent body created by DAFF will oversee implementation, staffed by experts in soil science, agronomy, and agroecology, and operate using digital soil monitoring (DSM) technologies alongside soil health indicator testing. The agroecological criteria will draw from internationally recognised frameworks such as those of the Food and Agriculture Organization (Food and Agriculture Organization 2024; Röös et al. 2022; Food Sovereignty 2023), ensuring alignment with global best practices while addressing unique Australian farmer needs.

Key Components

NASH recognises the complexity of soil health and the need for region-specific benchmarks. Unlike the ACCU scheme, which primarily incentivises increases in soil organic carbon (SOC) for carbon credits, NASH focuses on holistic soil health improvements that integrate regenerative practices, social justice, and biodiversity outcomes. 

Grants will be awarded to farmers who adopt practices aligned with agroecology and demonstrate measurable improvements of >0.1% in soil organic content (SOC, representing the total organic matter in the soil) each year, or maintain already high organic levels. Progress will be accessed using validated metrics such as SOC content, microbial activity, and nutrient status (Koorneef et al., 2024). This distinction clarifies that SOC refers to overall soil organic content, not just soil organic carbon, emphasising the goal of improving broader soil health rather than focusing solely on carbon storage. Given the diversity of Australia's agroecological zones and SOC levels, region-specific soil health indicators will guide certification, balancing scientific rigour with practical application.

Farmers can qualify through a variety of approaches that suit their land, including cover cropping low tillage, planting of native grains, and adopting Indigenous land management techniques. These will be verified via DSM and biodiversity assessments. DSM uses advanced computer models to analyse relationships between physical soil samples and environmental variables like topography, climate, geology, and vegetation. By combining satellite imagery, digital elevation models, and existing soil maps, DSM creates predictive soil maps for regions lacking physical samples through statistical and geospatial modelling (Biggs et al. 2022).

There are 29 million hectares of cropping land in Australia (ABS 2022). NASH aims to provide incentives for up to 25% of this land (7.25 million hectares), requiring $180 million in direct funding.

The policy allocates a total of $220 million over four years, linking financial support to measurable soil health improvements for both short-term relief and long-term agricultural benefits: $180 million for direct payments to farmers ($25 per hectare), $30 million for local organisations providing technical support, and $10 million for establishing a National Agroecology Certification Framework. By focusing on holistic, region-specific agroecological practices, NASH aims to

Policy Structure

The creation of a Victorian Food Environment Improvement Tax Incentive would not require additional budgetary allocations. Creation and administration of the incentive could be managed within the SRO’s existing resources. This incentive would result in foregone tax revenue to the SRO. In the first year of the US Government’s NMTC, more than US$80 million was allocated to support food desert neighbourhoods (The Reinvestment Fund, 2011, p.2). Accounting for inflation, this investment would be worth US$150 million today. Scaling this investment to Victoria’s current population, a comparable annual figure for foregone revenue from the proposed payroll tax incentive would be A$4.74 million. The opportunity cost of this scheme is offset in the long term as improved population health reduces healthcare expenditure. Local employment and economic activity stimulated by the creation of new businesses would also be generated through the incentive. 

Implementation

Establishing a National Agroecology FrameworkThe government will invest $10 million, led by DAFF in partnership with universities and agricultural research hubs, to establish a nationally recognised definition of agroecology. The framework will ensure consistency across regions while accommodating diverse soil health indicators. Through a co-design process with universities, agricultural institutions, Indigenous knowledge holders, and industry stakeholders, it will integrate scientific, Traditional Owner, and farmer-led knowledge into certification eligibility criteria. Key initiatives include standardising agroecological benchmarks, developing education programs for region-specific techniques, incorporating Indigenous land management practices such as fire-stick farming and native species cultivation, and expanding access to DSM technologies for long-term soil monitoring.

Agroecology Transition and Reward Grants for Farmers: An investment of $180 million in grants will be administered by DAFF, in consultation with regional agricultural advisory bodies, to incentivise agroecological farming and mitigate financial risks. These competitive grants will prioritise farms committed to regenerative soil health practices and will differ from the ACCU Scheme, which largely benefits large-scale carbon-offset projects. NASH is designed to be accessible to diverse farm types. Farmers eligible for ACCU credits may also participate in NASH, as payments are tied to broader agroecological outcomes rather than solely carbon sequestration, avoiding double-counting of outcomes on the same land. Aligned with international efforts to reward agroecological approaches to carbon sequestration and soil restoration (Dipu, Jones & Aziz 2022), the grants will compensate short-term revenue losses, subsidise agroecological technologies, fund training on soil regeneration, and support local organisations promoting sustainable practices.

Localised Support and Expansion of Digital Soil Health TechnologiesA $30 million investment, delivered through a private sector tender process led by DAFF in partnership with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, will expand the use of DSM technologies to enhance regenerative agriculture (Alexanderson et al. 2024). This initiative will provide farmers with advanced tools and data to assess and improve soil health. Key activities include:

• expanding DSM technologies for real-time analysis of soil fertility, carbon content, and microbial health

• increasing on-farm soil testing to inform adaptive management

• developing decision-support tools for crop selection, fertilisation, and irrigation strategies (Kidd et al. 2022)

• strengthening regional advisory services to support technology adoption. 

  
  

Expected outcomes include a clear, adaptable definition of agroecology, greater adoption of regenerative practices, improved access to digital soil health tools, and stronger collaboration between government, research institutions, and industry to drive innovation in sustainable agriculture.

Risks

Risk and Barriers

Implementing the NASH Certification presents several key challenges:

• Intergovernmental coordination: alignment across federal, state, and local governments, each with differing priorities, policy settings, and timelines. Without clear coordination, inconsistencies in interpretation and approvals may create delays or uncertainty for participants.

• Diverse soil types: Australia’s highly variable soils, climates, and land-use histories make uniform national soil health metrics difficult to apply. One-size-fits-all indicators risk being either impractical or insufficiently meaningful in some regions. Regionally tailored benchmarks will be needed to ensure relevance while maintaining national consistency.

• Farmer engagement: Long-term participation depends on farmer trust, perceived value, and alignment with on-farm realities. Policies addressing soil degradation often fail to account for farmer perceptions and constraints, limiting lasting impact (Kenny & Castilla-Rho 2022). If benefits are unclear or administrative demands are high, uptake may decline, despite farmers being central to successful implementation (Amundson 2020).

• Overlap with the ACCU Scheme: Potential overlap with the ACCU Scheme may create confusion around eligibility, compliance, and reporting, as well as concerns about double-counting. Clear differentiation between carbon-focused outcomes and broader soil health outcomes will be essential to maintain scheme integrity.

• Limitations of DSM: DSM is critical for monitoring but may be constrained by uneven access, variable accuracy across soil types, and limited applicability in remote regions. Overreliance on DSM could restrict participation or reduce data confidence without complementary verification approaches.

References

Adeniyi, O. D., Bature, H., & Mearker, M. (2024). A systematic review on digital soil mapping approaches in lowland areas. Land, 13(3), 379–379. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13030379

Adley, M., Alderson, H., Jackson, K., McGovern, W., Spencer, L., Addison, M., & O’Donnell, A. (2023). Ethical and practical considerations for including marginalised groups in quantitative survey research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 27(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2023.2228600

Agroecology Europe. (2023). Agroecological farm visit with policy makers: How can agroecology help reduce pesticides use and improve farm viability and resilience? | FAO. Retrieved November 26, 2024, from Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations website: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1641422/

Agroecology Europe. (2024, February 14). Retrieved September 28, 2024, from Agroecology Europe website: https://www.agroecology-europe.org/

Alexanderson, M. S., Luke, H., & Lloyd, D. J. (2024). Regenerative agriculture in australia: The changing face of farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1402849

Amin, M. N., Hossain, M. S., de Bruyn, L. L., & Wilson, B. (2020). A Systematic Review of Soil Carbon Management in Australia and the Need for a social-ecological Systems Framework. Science of the Total Environment, 719(135182). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135182

Australian National Audit Office. (2024). Design and Early Implementation of the National Soil Strategy. Australian National Audit Office. Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/design-and-early-implementation-the-national-soil-strategy

Auzzas, A., Capra, G. F., Jani, A. D., & Ganga, A. (2024). An improved digital soil mapping approach to predict total N by combining machine learning algorithms and open environmental data. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-024-02127-8

Barbato, C. T., & Strong, A. L. (2023). Farmer perspectives on carbon markets incentivizing agricultural soil carbon sequestration. Npj Climate Action, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00055-4

Barbosa, M. W. (2024). Government Support Mechanisms for Sustainable Agriculture: a Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052185

Barghusen, R., Sattler, C., Deijl, L., Weebers, C., & Matzdorf, B. (2021). Motivations of farmers to participate in collective agri-environmental schemes: The case of dutch agricultural collectives. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1979098

Barons, M. J., Walsh, L. E., Salakpi, E. E., & Nichols, L. (2024). A Decision Support System for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Loss Reduction under Uncertain Agricultural Policy Frameworks. Agriculture, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030458

Baumber, A., Cross, R., Ampt, P., Waters, C., Ringbauer, J., Bowdler, I., Metternicht, G. (2024). Soil-based Carbon farming: Opportunities for Collaboration. Journal of Rural Studies, 108103268. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103268

Bhagani. (2023). Cultivating hope: Regenerative farming for a sustainable future. Retrieved November 4, 2024, from Australian Conservation Foundation website: https://www.acf.org.au/cultivating-hope

Biggs, A. J. W., Crawford, M., Burgess, J., Smith, D., Andrews, K., & Sugars, M. (2022). Digital soil mapping in Australia. Can it achieve its goals? Soil Research. https://doi.org/10.1071/sr22042

Cárceles Rodríguez, B., Durán-Zuazo, V. H., Soriano Rodríguez, M., García-Tejero, I. F., Gálvez Ruiz, B., & Cuadros Tavira, S. (2022). Conservation agriculture as a sustainable system for soil health: A review. Soil Systems, 6(4), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems6040087

Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. London: Vintage.

Dai, S., Ma, Y., & Zhang, K. (2022). Land Degradation Caused by Construction Activity: Investigation, Cause and Control Measures. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 16046–16046. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316046

Davies, V. (2023, March 17). Women produce up to 80% of food in developing countries. Retrieved October 4, 2024, from Fooddigital.com website: https://fooddigital.com/features/women-produce-up-to-80-of-food-in-developing-countries

DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A., & Carlisle, L. (2016). Investing in the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy, 55(1), 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.013

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. (2024). Future Drought Fund on the Front Foot. In Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/BUDGET%202024-25%20FDF.pdf

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. (2021). National Soil Strategy. In Department of Agriculture, Farmers and Fisheries. Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/farm-food-drought/natural-resources/soils

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. (2022). Delivering Ag2030. In Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/delivering-ag2030-feb-2022.pdf

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2025). Joint media release: Farmers can now save twice by swapping to cost saving low emissions methods and machinery. In Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Canberra. Retrieved from https://minister.agriculture.gov.au/collins/media-releases/farmers-can-now-save-twice-swapping-cost-saving-low-emissions-methods-and-machinery 

Dipu, M. A., Jones, N. A., & Aziz, A. A. (2022). Drivers and barriers to uptake of regenerative agriculture in southeast Queensland: A mental model study. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2114120

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. (2023, January 18). Organic farming in the EU: A decade of growth. Retrieved from agriculture.ec.europa.eu website: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/news/organic-farming-eu-decade-growth-2023-01-18_en

Doss, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., & Theis, S. (2018). Women in agriculture: Four myths. Global Food Security, 16, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.001

Filippi, P., & Whelan, B. M. (2024). Proximal and remote sensing – what makes the best farm digital soil maps? Soil Research, 62(2). https://doi.org/10.1071/sr23112

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2023). The status of women in agrifood systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc5343en

Grace, P. R., Post, W. M., & Hennessy, K. (2006). The Potential Impact of Climate Change on Australia’s Soil Organic Carbon Resources. Carbon Balance and Management, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-1-14

Helepciuc, F.-E., & Todor, A. (2021). Evaluating the Effectiveness of the EU’s Approach to the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. PLOS ONE, 16(9), e0256719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256719

Heung, B., Ho, H. C., Zhang, J., Knudby, A., Bulmer, C. E., & Schmidt, M. G. (2016). An overview and comparison of machine-learning techniques for classification purposes in digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 265, 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.11.014

High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. Rome.

Iles, A. (2020). Can Australia Transition to an Agroecological future? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 45(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2020.1780537

Jonas, T., & Gressier, C. (2024). Australia’s New peasantry: Towards a Politics and Practice of Custodianship on agroecology-oriented Farms. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2024.2368857

Kenny, D. C., & Castilla-Rho, J. (2022). What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons and narratives from a participatory modelling exercise in australia. Land, 11(9), 1383. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091383

Kidd, D., Searle, R., Grundy, M., McBratney, A., Robinson, N., O’Brien, L., Zund, P., Arrouays, D., Thomas, M., Padarian, J., Jones, E., Bennett, J., Minasny, B., Holmes, K., Malone, B., Liddicoat, C., Meier, E., Stockmann, U., Wilson, P., Wilford, J., Payne, J., Ringrose-Voase, A., Slater, B., Odgers, N., Gray, J., van Gool, D., Andrews, K., Harms, B., Stower, L., Triantafilis, J. (2020). Operationalising digital soil mapping – Lessons from Australia. Geoderma Regional, 23, e00335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2020.e00335

Klein, L. F., & D’Ignazio, C. (2020). Data feminism (pp. 97–124). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mit Press.

Koch, A., Chappell, A., Eyres, M., & Scott, E. (2015). Monitor Soil Degradation or Triage for Soil Security? an Australian Challenge. Sustainability, 7(5), 4870–4892. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7054870

Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A., & Lombi, E. (2019). Soil and the Intensification of Agriculture for Global Food Security. Environment International, 132(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105078

Lagacherie, P. (2008). Digital soil mapping: A state of the art. Digital Soil Mapping with Limited Data, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8592-5_1

Lamichhane, S., Kumar, L., & Wilson, B. (2019). Digital soil mapping algorithms and covariates for soil organic carbon mapping and their implications: A review. Geoderma, 352, 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.031

Lencucha, R., Pal, N. E., Appau, A., Thow, A.-M., & Drope, J. (2020). Government Policy and Agricultural production: a Scoping Review to Inform Research and Policy on Healthy Agricultural Commodities. Globalization and Health, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-0542-2

Machado, A., de Campos, A. A., Calorio, C. M., de Sant’Ana, D., Bittencourt, G., Silva, J. A. S., Lima, R. N. S. (2013). National Plan on Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO). In Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.mda.gov.br

Macray JE and Montgomery DR (2023) ‘Trends in soil organic matter and topsoil thickness under regenerative practices at the University of Washington student farm’, PeerJ, 11:e16336 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16336

Mannaa, M., Mansour, A., Park, I., Lee, D.-W., & Seo, Y.-S. (2023). Insect-based agri-food waste valorization: Agricultural applications and roles of insect gut microbiota. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 17, 100287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100287

Matoz, H. (2021). Soil Strategy 2030. In Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC222524/

McDonald, D., Millicer, H., & Rako, D. (2022). Food Economy and Agroecology Strategy. In Mornington Peninsula Shire. Retrieved from https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Business-support/Agriculture

McKenzie, N., Hairsine, P., Gregory, L., Austin, J., Baldock, J., Webb, M., … Thomas, M. (2017). Priorities for improving soil condition across Australia’s agricultural landscapes. https://doi.org/10.4225/08/59e4f3adc09ac

Morton, A. (2024, March 26). Australia’s carbon credits system a failure on global scale, study finds. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/27/australias-carbon-credits-system-a-failure-on-global-scale-study-finds

Myers, R. L., & Wilson, K. R. (2023). Farmer perspectives about cover crops by non-adopters. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1011201

National Farmers' Federation. (2018). Australian Agricultural Sustainability Framework. Retrieved from National Farmers’ Federation website: https://nff.org.au/programs/australian-agricultural-sustainability-framework/

Nikolakis, W., Welham, C., & Greene, G. (2022). Diffusion of indigenous fire management and carbon-credit programs: Opportunities and challenges for “scaling-up” to temperate ecosystems. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.967653

Pamphilon, B., & Mikhailovich, K. (2019). Examining women’s business acumen in papua new guinea: Working with women smallholders in horticulture. In Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Canberra: ACIAR. Retrieved from ACIAR website: https://www.canberra.edu.au/research/faculty-research-centres/csc/livelihoods-and-learning-for-sustainable-communities/family-farms-teams-program/publications/Final_report_2010.052.pdf

Paul, C., Bartkowski, B., Dönmez, C., Don, A., Mayer, S., Steffens, M., … Helming, K. (2023). Carbon farming: Are Soil Carbon Certificates a Suitable Tool for Climate Change mitigation? Journal of Environmental Management, 330(117142). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117142

Perdue, M. (2019, January 16). Environmental sustainability in the 2018 farm bill - national farmers union. Retrieved December 13, 2024, from National Farmers Union - United to Grow Family Agriculture website: https://nfu.org/2019/01/16/environmental-sustainability-in-the-2018-farm-bill/

Pimentel, D. (2006). Soil Erosion: a Food and Environmental Threat. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8

Pittman, A., Appel, D., & Open Data Watch. (2021, September 13). Feminist data collection: Building a vision of an inclusive system. Retrieved October 4, 2024, from Feminist AI website: https://feministai.pubpub.org/pub/feminist-data-collection

Planning and Environment Amendment (Soil Protection) (Solar Power Generation Facilities) Bill 2023. , (2023).

Prasad MNV and Pietrzykowski M (2020) ‘Climate Change and Soil Interactions’, Elsevier Ltd, doi: 10.1016/C2018-0-03008-X

Promoting Healthy Soils. (2024). Retrieved from Regenerative Australian Farmer website: https://regenfarmers.com.au/

Pudasaini, K., Bhattarai, T., & Rolfe, J. (2024). Exploring the Barriers to Farmer Participation in Soil Carbon Projects under the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2024.2393246

Reardon-Smith, M. (2023). Forging Preferred Landscapes: Burning Regimes, Carbon Sequestration and ‘Natural’ Fire in Cape York, Far North Australia. Ethnos, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2023.2210264

Robertson, M., Macdonald, B., Farrell, M., Norman, H., Macdonald, L., Vadakattu, G., & Taylor, J. (2022). What can science offer the proponents of regenerative agriculture practices? Canberra: CSIRO Agriculture & Food Occasional Paper.

Scaling up Agroecology to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). (2018). Second International Symposium on Agroecology. Presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Agroecology, Rome. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/about/meetings/second-international-agroecology-symposium/en/

Scherf, B. (2018). Agroecology – a pathway to achieving the SDGs. The International Journal for Rural Development.

Searle, R., McBratney, A., Grundy, M., Kidd, D., Malone, B., Arrouays, D., … Orton, T. (2021). Digital soil mapping and assessment for Australia and beyond: A propitious future. Geoderma Regional, 24, e00359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00359

Stangl, M., Povolny, I., Schantl, S., & Tasser, M. (2021). Austrian Protein Strategy. In Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC211074/#:~:text=As%20to%20the%20first%20working,improving%20the%20supply%20of%20healthy%2C

Subia, G. (2022). Data Feminism. The AAG Review of Books, 10(3), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2325548x.2022.2072592

Supporting Australian Soil Stewards. (2024). Retrieved from Soils for Life website: https://soilsforlife.org.au/

Tittonell, P., El Mujtar, V., Felix, G., Kebede, Y., Laborda, L., Luján Soto, R., & de Vente, J. (2022). Regenerative agriculture—agroecology without politics? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.844261

University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (2024). Full Belly Farm. Retrieved December 13, 2024, from University of California website: https://ucanr.edu/sites/Nutrient_Management_Solutions/Farmer_Profiles/Full_Belly_Farm_-_Diversified_Organic/

Wilder, C., & Lederer, N. (2023). Healthy Soils and Innovation: Cultivating Economic Security on America’s Farms. In E2. Retrieved from https://e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/E2-Healthy-Soils-and-Innovation-July-2023.pdf

Williams, E. (2020). Failures beyond belief: Carbon offset projects fail to deliver results. Retrieved from UNSW Sites website: https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/10/failures-beyond-belief--carbon-offset-projects-failing-to-delive

Wilman, E. A. (2013). An economic model of aboriginal fire-stick farming. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12038

Yates, C., Evans, J., Vernooij, R., Eames, T., Muir, E., Holmes, J., … Russell‐Smith, J. (2023). Incentivizing sustainable fire management in Australia’s northern arid spinifex grasslands. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, 118384–118384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118384

Xue, R., Wang, C., Zhao, L., Sun, B., & Wang, B. (2022). Agricultural Intensification Weakens the Soil Health Index and Stability of Microbial Networks. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 339(108118). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108118

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.