(De)politicising Soils as a Multi-Layered Policy Problem – The Example of Preventive Soil Protection in Germany

Despite extensive scientific knowledge on soil degradation, soils have only recently emerged as a political priority, as evidenced by the 25th German government’s intention to revise the Federal Soil Protection Law (BBodSchG). Yet, public action remains limited, with scientific topics like preventive soil protection receiving scant political attention,. We examine how divergent problematisations of soils result in their limited politicisation, focussing on the interplay of (de)politicisation strategies by stakeholders and their influence on policy reform. We draw on a constructivist approach to policy problem constitution (Bacchi 2009), and a (de)politicisation framework (Feindt et al. 2021). Through process tracing of policy developments and stakeholder interests in BBodSchG revisions, we explore how soils became a political issue, why general problematisations like soil health gained traction, and why targeted solutions like preventive protection struggled for salience. Based on 21 interviews and surveys, we identify key drivers and obstacles in this trajectory, including strategic (de)politicisation by economic actors (e.g., agriculture, agricultural machinery manufacturers), environmental advocates (e.g., NGOs, organic farming organisations), and scientific organisations. Given the soil’s dual economic and ecological importance, our case study demonstrates how different forms of (de)politicisation influence policy change. It illustrates how (de)politicisation strategies reflect different problematisations, thus influencing policy reforms. The German case is specifically relevant, as the BBodSchG is the European Union’s (EU) most developed soil legislative framework. Nevertheless, the case highlights how creeping resource depletion is depoliticised, undermining statutory commitments to the precautionary principle. Our findings show divergences in problematisations of soils by political, scientific and economic actors. Scientists provide specialised knowledge, emphasising evidence-based understandings of degradation mechanisms. Soil scientific organisations also attempted to politicise soils, aligning with environmental groups’ politicisation strategies advocating for policy adjustments to safeguard soil functions amid environmental challenges like climate change. While these politicisation strategies partly lacked resources, political actors employed similar narratives, using the concept of soil health to connect soils to societal demands for environmental protection and climate policy. This strategy served political interests by appealing to “green” voter bases. Combined, these strategies generated some politicisation and initiated soil policy processes. However, depoliticization processes diluted the potential for policy change. Resistance to agri-environmental regulations, coupled with growing emphasis on food security and resilience, influenced soil policy. Political actors adopted depoliticization strategies to preserve power, reducing initial soil policy ambitions. Economic actors supported this broad depoliticization by remaining inactive, as low political ambitions aligned with their interests in maintaining high production levels. The outcome of renewed depoliticization is reflected in non-regulatory initiatives like data harmonisation and monitoring. Preventive soil protection, acknowledged under "Good Agricultural Practice" (§17 BBodSchG), remains without enforceable regulations. Ultimately, commitment to translating scientific and environmental problematisations into policy remains limited. Our study reveals how depoliticization strategies by certain actors and broader depoliticization processes, dilute potential for policy change. Scientific and environmental organisations politicisation strategies struggle to resonate due to resource and institutional barriers. Ultimately, the policy problem of soils is a product of an interest-driven, political process, aligning with broader agri-food policy agendas of resilience and food security.