Don't throw efficiency out with the bathwater: A reply to Jeffery and Verheijen (2020)

TL;DR

This paper critically evaluates a recent soil health policy proposal, advocating for a focus on soil functions and proposing a hybrid payment scheme to improve agri-environmental policies.

Contribution

It introduces a nuanced discussion on soil functions versus soil health and proposes a hybrid model-based payment scheme as an alternative policy approach.

Findings

Soil functions are more suitable for policy than soil health.

Hybrid payment schemes can address limitations of existing approaches.

Result-based payments have specific advantages and criticisms.

Abstract

In this paper, I reply to the recent article by Jeffery and Verheijen (2020) 'A new soil health policy paradigm: Pay for practice not performance!'. While expressing support for their call for a more pronounced role of soil protection in agri-environmental policy, I critically discuss the two main elements of their specific proposal: its emphasis of the concept of soil health and the recommendation to use action-based payments as the main policy instrument. I argue for using soil functions as a more established concept (and thus more adequate for policy purposes), which is also informationally richer than soil health. Furthermore, I provide a more differentiated discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of result-based and action-based payments, while addressing the specific criticisms towards the former that Jeffery and Verheijen voice. Also, I suggest an alternative approach (a hybrid model-based scheme) that addresses the limitations of both Jeffery and Verheijen's own proposal and the valid criticisms they direct at result-based payments.