The Network of Mission Soil Living Labs: SOILL Annual Report on Network Performance and Progress – 2025 Edition

SOILL annual report on network performance and progress Edition: 2025 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs SOILL annual report on network performance and progress Edition: 2025 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs SOILL annual report on network performance and progress Edition: 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17713355 © SOILL-Startup 2025 This publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NBC-SA 4.0) This publication by the SOILL-Startup project presents an overview of the annual progress of the first wave of 25 Mission Soil Living Labs established under the 2023 funding opportunities of the EU Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe.” It summarises key facts, developments, and lessons extracted from the annual SOILL monitoring and evaluation, presented in an aggregated and anonymous form to support learning, transparency, and the continued growth of the Mission Soil community. Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Authors: Line Friis Lindner, Aarhus University (AU) Ning Huang, AU Vidya Nair, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (EVILVO) Jo Bijttebier EVILVO Giulia Campodonico, European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) Dolinda Cavallo, ENoLL Aurora Agostinis, ENoLL Mar Ylla, ENoLL Leon Cruickshank, University of Lancaster (ULANC) Lee Brewster, ULANC Design: Giulia Campodonico, ENoLL Editing and layout: Giulia Campodonico, ENoLL 3 Executive Summary The Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” (Mission Soil) calls for Living Labs and Lighthouses to drive the European transition to healthy soils by 2030. In this context, the SOILL Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) is designed to provide a one-stop-shop support to the Europe-wide network of 100 Mission Soil LLs and LHs. The first implementation project under the SOILL framework, SOILL-Startup, is responsible for designing and starting up a structured support system. This will help the Mission Soil LLs establish themselves, operate effectively, grow to sustainable LLs 1 , and contribute to the Mission Soil objectives. As part of its activities, SOILL-Startup conducts ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the Mission Soil LLs, compiles and analyses data to track progress and fosters knowledge exchange within and beyond the network of LLs and LHs. While the full report was prepared for the Mission Secretariat (European Commission, DG AGRI) to support comprehensive monitoring of the Mission’s progress, with individual reports delivered directly to each Living Lab for learning, this document provides a public extract with anonymised and aggregated data. It offers an overview of the current state of the first wave of 25 Mission Soil Living Labs, funded through five collaborative projects under the dedicated topics of the 2023 Mission Soil Work Programme. M&E framework and process for Mission Soil LLs The SOILL M&E process for Mission Soil LLs has been implemented in a structured and phased manner over the first half of 2025, following a clearly defined timeline to ensure consistency, transparency, and active participation across all involved actors. It serves to ensure the credibility of the results and support a clear understanding of how they were derived. The process is twofold: phase 1) contributions from the Mission Soil LLs completing the self-assessment questionnaire and qualitative assessment questionnaire; phase 2) an expert-led review and analysis phase conducted by independent SOILL evaluators within the SOILL-Startup consortium, ensuring a rigorous, consistent and impartial evaluation process. Preparing the Mission Soil LLs well for the M&E process, SOILL-Startup provided early on onboarding materials and detailed guidance, including Q&A sessions, to establish continuous support throughout the process. However, the process also highlighted important challenges related to engagement and preparedness of the Mission Soil LLs to the M&E process. Such key lessons will be addressed in the upcoming M&E processes to ensure an effective, participatory, and supportive process. First wave of the Mission Soil LLs: key characteristics and setup Drawing from the assessment process, carried out by the 25 Mission Soil LLs, the analysed results provide a detailed description of the key characteristics describing them, aggregated at projectand LL-level, according to: Land use types; Mission Soil objectives; Experimentation sites and potential number of Mission Soil LHs per land use type; Soil parameters monitored; and Stakeholder groups involved. Analysing the number of solutions developed, tested and scaled up concerning forward thinking sustainable approaches to soil management; as well as frequency of self-monitoring internal processes, give insights into the functioning of Mission Soil LLs and the way in which they monitor progress and impact. Evaluation results and insights Drawing from the evaluation process, carried out by the SOILL evaluators, a comparative analysis of the 25 Mission Soil LLs is provided for by assessing their maturity and performances along the five key sections of the M&E framework: Strategy, Operations, Openness, Users & Reality, and Impact & Monitoring. The analysis provides key observations and identifies patterns, highlights leading 1 Sustainable LLs refer to LLs that are able to maintain and uphold themselves and their operations over a period of time. 4 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 performers, and uncovers areas where targeted support or knowledge exchange could enhance the maturity of Mission Soil LLs across the network. A cross-cutting analysis across the five sections using qualitative thematic coding, shows strengths and challenges at the level of each of the sub-sections evaluated by the SOILL evaluators. Synthesising similar challenges and drawing out strengths for each of the five sections, overall recommendations highlight: • Strategy: to strengthen participatory governance, involving a balanced mix of stakeholders, and developing sustainable business model to ensure resilience and scalability. • Operations: to clarify roles and strengthen human resources, empowering team members, diversifying participatory methods and optimising infrastructure and tool use. • Openness: to embed ethical co-innovation processes, and clarifying ownership supporting fair, transparent and equitable knowledge sharing. • Users & Reality: to promote deep and ongoing stakeholder engagement across all phases from exploration, co-design, prototyping to evaluation, as well as ensuring iterative learning. • Impact & Monitoring: to develop structured impact frameworks integrating clear indicators across social, environmental, economic, regulatory, and technological domains thus enabling implementing robust monitoring and learning systems, as well as shared learning through regular reporting, peer exchange and adaptive planning mechanisms. A specific chapter has been included to provide an overview of the pre-assessment of LL&LH initiatives, collected through the PREPSOIL project. This helped to broaden the understanding of the wider landscape, and which will be the focus of future activities under the SOILL FPA. While the results of the first M&E round, conducted under SOILL-Startup, shows that the majority of the 25 Mission Soil LLs are in an early development stage, the first M&E round also highlights the importance of supporting the Mission Soil LLs to align with the Mission Soil objectives, ensuring accountability, fostering learning, and guiding targeted support. To that end, the insights gathered from the M&E process and analysis in this report, serve to inform future evaluation rounds and enforce tailored support strategies, strengthening the capacity of the current and future Mission Soil LLs to play a pivotal role in achieving soil health across Europe. 5 1 Introduction The EU Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” (Mission Soil) aims to establish a network of 100 Living Labs (LLs) and Lighthouses (LHs) to lead the transition toward healthier soils. This initiative promotes sustainable soil management through a collaborative, structured approach, with a strong focus on Mission Soil LLs. 1.1 The context To support the development of this network, the SOILL Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) was created. Its purpose is to implement a centralised support structure for LLs and LHs through a series of SOILL projects, beginning with SOILL-Startup. This support spans a range of activities, including capacity building, coordination, networking, promotion, and knowledge exchange. A key component of this is Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), which enables LLs and LHs to measure progress, share learnings, and refine their practices over time. In this context, SOILL-Startup has developed the SOILL M&E Framework to guide the growth of LLs operating in the Mission Soil context and ensure alignment with Mission Soil objectives. The SOILL M&E has been designed to support the growth of the community of LLs working in the soil context, that according to the PREPSOIL taxonomy 2 , could be classified using a three-categories scale explained in the following paragraph. This classification ensures that LLs and LHs can receive support based on their developmental stage and alignment with Mission Soil objectives. The three categories of LLs operating in the Mission Soil context are displayed in Figure 1. Figure 1. Three categories of LLs operating in the Mission Soil context This report presents the outcomes of M&E conducted for the first wave of Mission Soil LLs, funded under the 2023 topics. To provide a broader and clearer overview of all existing LLs and LHs initiatives – beyond those directly funded by Mission Soil – a specific Chapter 5. 2 Campodonico, G., & Gelabert, M. Y. (2024). PREPSOIL Report on LL/LH taxonomy, identification and mapping feeding the online interactive atlas (D4.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13255005 6 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 Beyond Mission Soil LL&LHs: PREPSOIL pre-assessment of LL&LH initiatives has been included in this report to provide an initial analysis of European and Emerging LLs and LHs based on data gathered by the PREPSOIL project. These additional initiatives (European and Emerging LLs) are important for understanding the wider landscape and will be the focus of future activities under the SOILL FPA. 1.2 Monitoring & Evaluation framework The SOILL M&E Framework offers a structured approach to monitoring and evaluating LLs operating in the Mission Soil context. Its purpose is to generate insights that support the continuous development of LLs while ensuring alignment with the Mission Soil objectives. The framework is designed to provide the individual LLs with reports to monitor progress, ensure compliance to the Mission Soil criteria, identifying strengths and weaknesses. The SOILL M&E framework was co-created through an iterative, collaborative process involving key stakeholders with expertise in soil health and LLs. Starting in January 2024, it was built on existing methodologies like the ENoLL Harmonised Evaluation Framework and PREPSOIL Report on LL/LH taxonomy 3 . The framework was also shaped by an extensive review of EU policies, such as the Mission Soil Implementation Plan 4 and the Soil Monitoring Law. A multidisciplinary SOILL-Startup Pilot Group led the co-creation process through workshops and consultations, ensuring the framework addressed practical needs. Ongoing input from the Mission Soil Secretariat with representatives of both the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) and European Research Executive Agency (REA), Mission Soil Board 5 , related EU projects, and the European Soil Observatory (EUSO) helped align the framework with EU policy and ensure scientific robustness and harmonization of soil health monitoring. The SOILL M&E framework plays a crucial role in tracking progress, assessing performance, and fostering learning through the Monitor, Evaluate, and Learn (MEL) 6 approach: • Monitoring: tracks activities, results, and impacts of Mission Soil LLs and LHs to assess their alignment with Mission Soil objectives. • Evaluation: assesses progress against Mission Soil objectives and criteria, examines trends, strengths, and weaknesses, and indicates Mission Soil LLs and LHs support soil health and ecosystem services. • Learning: transforms M&E insights into actionable recommendations that improve implementation strategies, inform policy decisions, and contributes to shared knowledge on soil health across Europe, enhancing the overall impact of Mission Soil LLs and LHs. The SOILL M&E framework also plays a role in supporting Mission Soil LLs and LHs to meet Mission Soil criteria, recognising their quality, credibility, and alignment with soil health goals, their co-creation practices, and their strong monitoring methods. Within the SOILL-Startup project, recommendations on specific training or learning material will be provided to the Mission Soil LLs to address their weaknesses and support their growth. 1.3 M&E structure The SOILL M&E Framework is organised into five core sections, each focusing on a crucial aspect of a LL operating in the soil context. These sections evaluate both strategic and operational components, providing a thorough assessment that aims to promote long-term sustainability, successful implementation, and meaningful collaboration. 3 Campodonico, G., & Gelabert, M. Y. (2024). PREPSOIL Report on LL/LH taxonomy, identification and mapping feeding the online interactive atlas (D4.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13255005 4 European Commission (2021), A Soil Deal for Europe – Implementation Plan, available at 1517488e-767a-4f4794a0-bd22197d18fa_en 5 https://mission-soil-platform.ec.europa.eu/about/mission-board 6 International Development Alliance. (2023). Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) guide. https://intdevalliance.scot/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/MEL_Support_Package_4th_June.pdf 7 An overview of the five sections is provided in Figure 2: Figure 2. Overview of the sections in the SOILL M&E Framework The SOILL M&E Framework is based on a three-layered model (Macro, Meso, Micro), designed to capture both strategic and operational dimensions of the LLs. Within this structure, the five sections are assessed using 13 criteria, as illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3. Distribution of the 13 SOILL M&E criteria across the three-layered LL model Further details on each section and the 13 criteria are available in the SOILL Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 7 . 7 Vervoort, K., & Campodonico, G. (2025). SOILL Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines - A complete guideline to the SOILL Monitoring & Evaluation process for Soil Health Living Labs. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14826969 8 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 1.4 M&E tools The SOILL M&E Framework relies on two main assessment tools that ensure a comprehensive evaluation, balancing self-reflection with expert validation to enhance the credibility, consistency, and learning impact of the M&E process: • The Self-Assessment Questionnaire 8 is a quantitative tool, completed online via the SOILL Hub 9 . It consists of 47 structured, closed-ended questions, allowing for a standardised evaluation of LLs performance across five key sections and 13 criteria (Figure 2 and Figure 3). • The Qualitative Assessment Questionnaire 10 is a qualitative tool, conducted offline in a Word/PDF format. It contains 14 open-ended questions, requiring more in-depth responses supported by evidence. Unlike the self-assessment, this tool involves an external review process, generating a detailed report following the full SOILL evaluation. 1.5 Data sharing, confidentiality and open-access approach The SOILL M&E process generates detailed qualitative and quantitative information on the functioning, maturity, and context of each Living Lab funded under the Mission Soil topics analysed in this report. At this stage, full open access to these evaluation results is not possible. Due to the limited number of LLs funded so far and the specificity of their contextual characteristics (e.g. country, regional setting, thematic focus, governance arrangements, or partner composition), complete anonymisation is not yet feasible without risking indirect identification. Protecting confidentiality is essential to maintaining the trust relationship between SOILL and the Living Labs. This trust enables LLs to share accurate, sensitive, and reflective information, which is fundamental for the credibility and usefulness of the M&E process. At the same time, SOILL recognises the importance of open and shared knowledge for supporting the growth of the Mission Soil community. Strengthening transparency, comparability, and collective learning is aligned with the Mission’s ambition and with FAIR data principles. To contribute to this broader open-access effort—while fully safeguarding sensitive evaluation data—SOILL has developed a complementary dataset containing high-level descriptive information about the first 25 Mission Soil LLs. This complementary dataset – openly accessible on Zenodo through the SOILL community 11 – includes only non-sensitive information that has already been approved and published in the Mission Soil Living Labs Catalogue, such as general characteristics, thematic focus, key strengths, stakeholder types, Mission Soil objectives addressed, and main improvement techniques. By sharing this curated dataset, SOILL supports transparency, reuse, and shared learning across the Mission Soil community, while ensuring that confidential evaluation findings remain protected. 1.6 Document overview While the aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the first Mission Soil LLs, this report is structured around the following key chapters: Besides this introduction, the document contains the following chapters: • Chapter 2 - Overview of Mission Soil LL characteristics and setups presents the main characteristics of the first 25 Mission Soil LLs, including land-use types, Mission Soil objectives addressed, experimentation sites and lighthouses, soil parameters monitored, and the 8 Vervoort, K., Campodonico, G., & Visser, S. (2025). SOILL Self-assessment questionnaire – Overview of selfassessment tool questions for Soil Health Living Labs. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14826820 9 SOILL Hub: https://soill2030.app/ 10 Vervoort, K., & Campodonico, G. (2025). SOILL Qualitative assessment questionnaire – Overview of qualitative assessment questions for Soil Health Living Labs. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14826904 11 SOILL community on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/communities/soill. Mission Soil Living Lab dataset: 10.5281/zenodo.17713317 9 stakeholder groups involved. Additional characteristics such as products and solutions developed, monitoring practices, and user satisfaction methods are also summarised. • Chapter 3 - Evaluation results and insights presents the results of the SOILL self-assessment and qualitative assessment, covering the alignment between LL self-assessment and SOILL evaluation outcomes, comparative insights at LL and project level, and the main cross-cutting strengths, challenges, and recommendations across the five operational areas of the SOILL M&E Framework (Strategy, Operations, Openness, Users & Reality, and Impact & Monitoring). • Chapter 4 - Beyond Mission Soil LL&LHs: PREPSOIL pre-assessment of LL&LH initiatives summarises insights from the PREPSOIL Project, including the PREPSOIL map, taxonomy, and the initial pre-assessment of European and Emerging LLs and LHs. This chapter highlights their evaluation status, key gaps, and challenges to complement the picture provided by the Mission Soil LLs. • Chapter 5 - Conclusions, recommendations and perspectives synthesises the overall findings of the report, offering recommendations for future SOILL support actions and perspectives for strengthening the Mission Soil LL network. This report presents an anonymised summary of findings intended for public sharing. All data has been anonymised to protect the identity of individual Mission Soil LLs. The original, confidential version was shared with the Mission Secretariat, the European Commission, and SOILL-Startup, and individual results were communicated directly to each participating Living Lab. 16 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 Asked to identify which soil parameters they (plan to) monitor, the Mission Soil LLs selected all 12 macro-parameters (Figure 11). However, a majority of Mission Soil LLs (plan to) monitor soil organic carbon (24 LLs), soil compaction (20 LLs), soil nutrient availability (21 LLs) and soil acidity (16 LLs). The least selected soil parameters are soil sealing (2 LLs) and organic contaminants (5 LLs). Comparing the soil parameters monitored with the distribution of Mission Soil objectives, the least selected parameter of soil sealing is related to the lowest distribution of objective 3 Urban soil (1%). Figure 11. Distribution of soil parameters (planned to be) monitored by the 25 Mission Soil LLs Figure 12 shows the overall distribution according to the 12 macro soil parameters among the 25 Mission Soil LLs. The majority of Mission Soil LLs monitor 6 or more soil parameters. Four Mission Soil LLs indicated other parameters of which three Mission Soil LLs indicate metabarcoding and one Mission Soil LL indicated electrical conductivity. 7 10 24 20 21 12 5 15 16 12 2 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1. Salinisation 2. Soil erosion rate 3. Soil organic carbon 4. Soil compaction 5. Soil Nutrient availability 6. Heavy metals in soil 7. Organic contaminants 8. Soil water holiding capacity 9. Soil acidity 10. Loss of soil biodiversity 11. Soil sealing 12. Other Number of Mission Soil LLs Soil parameters 17 Figure 12. Overall distribution according to the 12 macro soil parameters among the 25 Mission Soil LLs Within each project, Mission Soil LLs do not use the exact same soil parameters, the number of which also differs; some Mission Soil LLs include sub-categories of soil parameters whereas some Mission Soil LLs did not select sub-categories. In conclusion, the Mission Soil objectives are not effectively monitored by all Mission Soil LLs, neither in a manner that allows for comparison of data nor generating insights. It is recommended that the Mission Soil LLs within their project discuss on what they monitor (in relation to their objectives), how they monitor (detailed data is not provided), how they use the results (to inform their stakeholders) and how they will learn from each other regarding the outcomes. The knowledge sharing and communication both within a Mission Soil LL and among projects requires attention and could be facilitated by SOILL. Stakeholder groups involved The Mission Soil Implementation Plan outlines specific requirements for Mission Soil LLs including engagement with multiple stakeholders at different scales. Asked about the different types of stakeholder groups involved, the 25 Mission Soil LLs involve all 49 stakeholder groups except for the “Research funding organisations” which no one selected (Figure 13). Mission Soil LLs have added that they work with “public research organisations” under “other” indicating that this is an important stakeholder. The most common stakeholder group involved in the Mission Soil LLs is “farmers” (selected by 22 Mission Soil LLs) followed by “research institutions” (21), “farmer associations” (22), “local authorities” (18), “universities” (17), “advisors” (17) and “agrifood sector companies” (17). The stakeholder groups least involved in LLs ecosystems are “research funding organisations” (0 LLs), followed by “spatial planners” (1), and “citizen science networks” (1). 1. Salinisation 5% 2. Soil erosion rate 7% 3. Soil organic carbon 16% 4. Soil compaction 14% 5. Soil Nutrient availability 14% 6. Heavy metals in soil 8% 7. Organic contaminants 3% 8. Soil water holiding capacity 10% 9. Soil acidity 11% 10. Loss of soil biodiversity 8% 11. Soil sealing 1% 12. Other 3% Distribution of soil parameters 18 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 Figure 13. Stakeholder groups involved in the Mission Soil LLs’ ecosystems By considering the main stakeholder groups (academia, government, industry and users 15 ), the most predominantly represented one is industry (39%), followed by academia and users (both 19%), government (18%), and others (4%) (Figure 14). 15 European Committee of the Regions: Commission for Social Policy, Education, Employment, Research and Culture, Cavallini, S., Soldi, R., Friedl, J. and Volpe, M., Using the quadruple helix approach to accelerate the transfer of research and innovation results to regional growth, European Committee of the Regions, 2016, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2863/408040 19 Figure 14. Stakeholder groups involved in Mission Soil LLs ecosystems 2.2 Additional characteristics Number of products/solutions/services developed, tested and scaled up for forwardthinking sustainable soil management Of the 25 Mission Soil LLs, only six indicated the number of products/solutions/services developed and tested over the past 12 months concerning forward-thinking sustainable approaches to soil management. Only three of the 25 Mission Soil LLs indicate the number of products/solutions/services concerning forward-thinking sustainable approaches to soil management developed by the Mission Soil LL, are scaled up by other LLs, EU CAP Network Operational Groups, organisations, networks, and/or regions. Among the three LLs, the forward-thinking soil management solutions – mainly conservation tillage, crop rotation and diversification, and carbon farming - are developed by the LL and scaled by other LLs, EU CAP Network Operational Groups, organisations, networks, and/or regions (Figure 15). In comparison, a smaller number of products (such a soil sensors and monitoring equipment) and services (such as education and training programs) are scaled up. Academia, 19% Government, 18% Industry, 39% Users, 19% Other , 4% Stakeholder group representation among the 25 Mission Soil LLs 20 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 Figure 15. Distribution of products/solutions/services developed and scaled up Frequency of self-monitoring for internal components of the Mission Soil LL Measuring the frequency of monitoring is an indicator of how close the progress and development of the Mission Soil LL is followed up by the involved partners, allowing them to adjust strategies and processes more closely. To the question, how frequently internal components of the Mission Soil LLs are monitored by the managing team/governance team through self-monitoring processes, Figure 16 showed the answers: Soil Sensors and Monitoring Equipment 6% Conservation Tillage 32% Crop Rotation and Diversification 32% Carbon Farming 15% Soil Testing and Analysis 6% Soil Improving Business models 3% Sustainable Land Management Consulting 3% Education and Training Programs 3% Total number: N = 34 21 Figure 16. Frequency of monitoring internal components of the Mission Soil LL by managing/governance team through self-monitoring processes A common trend is that most of the internal components are never monitored, and the least frequently (never) monitored by most Mission Soil LLs is the “Service-portfolio” (15) followed by “Business Models” (13). At the other end of the spectrum, among those internal components that are monitored most frequently (monthly) is ”stakeholders involved” (7), followed by ”financial status”, ”equipment and infrastructure” and ”capacity building”. The fact that the latter four components are monitored most often could be an indicator that most of the 25 Mission Soil LLs are currently in their early phases focussing on involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders and setting up the LL (purchasing equipment etc.). Frequency of contributions by the Mission Soil LL to impacts monitored by internal selfmonitoring processes Measuring the frequency of impact assessments is an indicator of the strength of the Mission Soil LLs since it allows the LL to change/strengthen its strategies and approaches based on these impact assessments. While most Mission Soil LLs indicate that they do not monitor contributions to impacts, “technological impacts”, followed by “regulator impacts” and “economic impacts” are most often not monitored. 22 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 Nevertheless, Mission Soil LLs monitor most frequently (1/year) mainly “economic impacts” (7), “academic impacts” (7) and “environmental impact” (6) (Figure 17). Figure 17. Frequency of contributions to impacts monitored by internal self-monitoring processes These results showed that Mission Soil LLs may lack frameworks or capacity to monitor and assess impacts. Technological and regulatory impacts are likely more complex to monitor due to requirements of tracking tech adoption and regulation changes, thus often omitted. Methods to monitor the satisfaction of users and/or stakeholders While only 11 of the 25 Mission Soil LLs have methods in place to monitor the satisfaction of users and/or stakeholders concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle, knowledge sharing and capacity building, of those four have methods within all four categories (Figure 18). Thus, we recommend and encourage all Mission Soil LLs to start monitoring stakeholders’ satisfaction and attend potential trainings provided by SOILL. 23 Figure 18. Methods in place to monitor the satisfaction of users and/or stakeholders Use of standardised methods to monitor the satisfaction of users/stakeholders across different LL projects and/or activities To this question, only seven out of the 25 Mission Soil LLs responded that they do use standardised methods to monitor the satisfaction of users/stakeholders across different LL projects and/or activities. With standardised methods, was meant if the Mission Soil LL always uses the same method for asking the same satisfaction questions to users and stakeholders throughout the projects or after a LL activity. Considering the low number of respondent LLs to this question, a training on monitoring stakeholder satisfaction provided by SOILL could be necessary and valuable to the Mission Soil LLs. 31% 22% 25% 22% Methods in place to monitor the satisfaction of users and/or stakeholders concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle and concerning knowledge sharing and capacity building Frequency of involvement as user/stakeholder Degree of influence on the innovation cycle as user/stakeholder Knoledge sharing by the Mission Soil LL Capacity building by the Mission Soil LL 24 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 3 Evaluation results and insights This chapter presents key findings from the analysis conducted after the external evaluation of the Mission Soil LLs. It draws on evaluator scores and feedback across the five sections of the M&E framework: Strategy, Operations, Openness, Users & Reality, and Impact & Monitoring. The analysis compares self-assessment results with evaluator scores, analyses the performance across each M&E section, highlights observations at project level, and presents cross-cutting strengths, challenges, and recommendations based on evaluator feedback. 3.1 Alignment between self-assessment results and SOILL evaluators’ scores As part of the evaluation process, a comparison was made between the scores generated from the selfassessment tool and the final scores assigned by SOILL evaluators across the five M&E sections: Strategy, Operations, Openness, Users & Reality, and Impact & Monitoring. The self-assessment scores were generated based on the close-ended responses given by each Mission Soil LL in the SOILL Hub. In parallel, Mission Soil LLs submitted a separate qualitative questionnaire with open-ended answers describing their approaches and practices for each of the five sections. SOILL evaluators reviewed both the quantitative results from the self-assessment tool and the qualitative responses when assigning scores. Differences between the self-assessment and SOILL evaluator scores help to contextualise the overall results and highlight variations in interpretation, evidence, or level of detail provided by the Mission Soil LLs. Mission Soil LL-level score differences By analysing the scores results, some differences were identified between the self-assessment scores and the final scores assigned by SOILL evaluators across the five evaluation sections for each Mission Soil LL. The values shown are calculated as: self-assessment score minus evaluator score. Key Observations: In several Mission Soil LLs, the self-assessment tool-generated scores were higher than the final SOILL evaluator scores. In contrast, some Mission Soil LLs received higher scores from SOILL evaluators than those generated by the self-assessment tool. A number of Mission Soil LLs showed only minor differences between the scores: Across the five M&E sections, • Strategy and Openness generally show small or neutral differences, with SOILL evaluator scores closely matching those generated by the self-assessment tool in most Mission Soil LLs. • Users & Reality shows the highest number of positive differences (self-assessment score higher than SOILL evaluator score), often due to a lack of concrete examples in the qualitative responses to support claims about user involvement and stakeholder engagement. • Impact & Monitoring and Operations display more negative differences (SOILL evaluator score higher than tool score), suggesting that SOILL evaluators identified stronger practices in these areas than were reflected in the close-ended selections. In some cases, Mission Soil LLs may have answered conservatively in the tool or not fully captured their activities through the available response options, while the qualitative input gave a more complete picture. Another possible explanation in case of Impact & Monitoring is that many Mission Soil LLs focused primarily on monitoring and evaluation of soil health outcomes, rather than on monitoring the LL process itself. If the self-assessment tool places greater weight on the M&E of LL functioning, this could result in lower scores, even when robust soil-related monitoring activities are in place. This misalignment between what Mission Soil LLs emphasised and what the tool measured may help explain some of the observed gaps between SOILL evaluator scores and self-assessment results. 25 These overall findings point to a few broader reflections on how the evaluation process functioned across the network. In several cases, the difference between self-assessment and SOILL evaluator scores exceeded two points, indicating a significant gap between qualitative assessment and self-assessment. These discrepancies were not necessarily linked to actual performance but often reflected mismatches between selected responses in the tool and the information provided in the qualitative input. In some instances, SOILL evaluators considered the early-stage status of the Mission Soil LL and judged the reported actions to be appropriate for that phase. These findings suggest that improving consistency between tool responses and qualitative input and refining the scoring logic where needed can help ensure a more accurate reflection of each Mission Soil LL’s development and practices. They also highlight the importance of reviewing the usefulness and appropriateness of the scoring formulas applied in the self-assessment tool, particularly in cases where SOILL evaluator scores consistently differ from tool-based results. Project-level score patterns A heatmap was created to present the average difference between self-assessment scores and SOILL evaluator-assigned scores across the Mission Soil LLs grouped by project, for each of the five M&E sections. Key Observations: • Several consistent trends appear across the five sections. Most projects show positive values in the Users & Reality section, indicating that self-assessment scores were higher than SOILL evaluator scores. This suggests that while Mission Soil LLs often reported high levels of user engagement in the self-assessment tool, the qualitative explanations provided limited evidence for these claims. Conversely, Impact & Monitoring often shows negative differences, implying that SOILL evaluators recognised more developed or promising practices than were reflected in the tool responses, possibly due to early-stage planning being better described in the qualitative section than captured in the close-ended options. • Differences are also visible at the project level, particularly in the Users & Reality and Impact & Monitoring sections. This may indicate that, on average, the responses selected in the selfassessment tool were not fully supported by corresponding information in the qualitative inputs. Where mostly negative values are displayed across sections, SOILL evaluators identified more advanced or credible practices than those reflected in the self-assessment data. This could be due to more detailed qualitative descriptions or a cautious approach in selecting responses in the tool. Relatively small and consistent differences across sections reflect a more even alignment between the two scoring components. A mixed pattern, with positive and negative values reflects a variation in how practices were reported across the sections. These variations at the project level highlight the importance of consistent and well-integrated reporting between the self-assessment tool and the qualitative input, as well as the role of project-level coordination in supporting this process. 3.2 Comparative assessment of Mission Soil LL performance across key evaluation sections This subchapter presents a comparative analysis of Mission Soil LL performance based on average SOILL evaluator scores across the five M&E sections: Strategy, Operations, Openness, Users & Reality, and Impact & Monitoring. The analysis includes two levels: first, a comparison across individual Mission Soil LLs to identify performance differences within the network; and second, a project level comparison, which aggregates the performance of Mission Soil LLs under each funded project to highlight broader patterns and trends. The purpose of this analysis is to identify patterns, highlight leading performers, and uncover areas where targeted support or knowledge exchange could enhance the performance of Mission Soil LLs across the network. 32 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 Recommendations • User-centric and real-world relevance: Promote Deep and Ongoing Stakeholder engagement, engage stakeholders meaningfully across all phases—exploration, co-design, prototyping, and evaluation. move from tokenistic to transformative co-creation through regular training and diversity-aware practices. • Ensure real-life relevance and iterative learning: Design activities to connect authentically with users’ lived experiences, embedding feedback loops for refinement. Integrate real-world testing as a continuous, not one-off, activity. Impact & Monitoring This section focuses on SOILL evaluator observations on how Mission Soil LLs address impact measurement, scale-up of activities, and monitoring practices. It is structured around three subsections: Impact, Scale-up, and Monitoring. Strengths One of the most frequently observed strengths was the use of defined soil health parameters (20), indicating that many Mission Soil LLs had established clear indicators aligned with soil monitoring goals. This was complemented by multi-dimensional impact tracking (14) and internal operational monitoring (14), reflecting the capacity of several Mission Soil LLs to track progress across environmental, social, economic, and project-level domains. SOILL evaluators also noted stakeholder satisfaction feedback (11) and early impact planning (11) as areas where Mission Soil LLs demonstrated foresight. In many cases, structured tools like surveys were used to gather user feedback, and early-stage planning documents or frameworks helped outline impact pathways. Standardised monitoring methods (10) and awareness-based scaling efforts (10) highlighted the adoption of recognized approaches and public-facing efforts to extend soil-related innovations. Mission Soil LLs also used public awareness initiatives (10), such as campaigns or events, to promote soil literacy and visibility. Fewer cases demonstrated tangible progress in scaling activities through initial product/service scale-up (8), while only one Mission Soil LL had a revenue strategy that supports scale-up (1), suggesting that financial planning for long-term growth remains rare. Challenges The most commonly reported challenge was insufficient information for evaluation (26), where SOILL evaluators found it difficult to assess impact due to limited or unclear data. This was followed by no stakeholder feedback mechanisms (16), highlighting the absence of structured ways to collect input from users or partners. Several Mission Soil LLs lacked clarity in how they planned to expand their activities. Both no clear scaleup strategy and no soil data management plan were each cited 11 times. The former points to missing goals, methods, or partnerships for expansion, while the latter reflects the absence of structured systems for collecting and managing soil-related data. Other common challenges included lack of impact logic (9), where activities were not clearly linked to expected outcomes or indicators, and no documentation of scale-up activities (8), even when scaling was likely taking place. The theme early stage – impact not yet tracked (8) suggested that some Mission Soil LLs had not begun to monitor their outcomes due to their developmental phase. Additional issues, though mentioned less frequently, included monitoring frequency mismatched to purpose (5), impact limited to project deliverables (4), and limited alignment with broader frameworks such as partial alignment with Mission Soil indicators (3), unsystematic impact monitoring (3), and no baseline data collection (3). These indicate that while some monitoring may be taking place, its design or scope may not yet meet long-term or strategic requirements. 33 Recommendations • Develop structured impact frameworks: Co-develop impact pathways with stakeholders, aligning with wider EU commission goals. Integrate clear indicators across social, environmental, economic, regulatory, and technological domains. • Plan for scale-up and replication: Design LL initiatives with scalability and adaptation in mind. Identify key audiences and contexts for potential replication, supported by dissemination and exploitation strategies. • Implement robust monitoring and learning systems: Establish dynamic, multi-method monitoring frameworks capturing both user experiences and technical outcomes. • Enable shared learning through regular reporting, peer exchange, and adaptive planning mechanisms. 34 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 4 Beyond Mission Soil LL&LHs: PREPSOIL preassessment of LL&LH initiatives The PREPSOIL (Preparing for the "Soil Deal for Europe") project 16 , is the first project funded under the Mission Soil. It facilitates the deployment of the Mission Soil across European regions, by helping key players to reduce soil degradation, while increasing soil awareness and soil literacy. Specific activities were dedicated to strengthening understanding of LLs and their role in improving soil health. Among the several activities implemented, the PREPSOIL project mapped several LL initiatives existing before the publication of the Mission Soil. This chapter presents some initial analysis of the LL initiatives mapped by PREPSOIL, offering a state-of-the-art overview of the LLs/LHs in soil across Europe and their alignment with the Mission Soil criteria. This includes a brief explanation of the PREPSOIL map and the PREPSOIL assessment, as well as the results obtained. 4.1 The PREPSOIL map Built on the data provided by the Soil Mission Support (SMS) 17 project which aimed to enhance coordination in sustainable soil and land management research, the PREPSOIL map (Figure 19) displays a broad spectrum of LLs/LHs in soil across the European landscape. It includes filtering options based on initiative type (LL, LH, or ES), land use (agriculture, forestry, urban, industry 18 ), and whether initiatives were identified by SMS or PREPSOIL. To learn more about the development refer to the “PREPSOIL Report on LL/LH taxonomy, identification and mapping feeding the online interactive atlas (D4.1)” 19 . Figure 19. PREPSOIL map 16 Preparing for the ‘Soil Deal for Europe’ Mission. PREPSOIL. GA: 101070045. DOI: 10.3030/101070045. https://prepsoil.eu/ 17 Soil Mission Support: Towards a European research and innovation roadmap on soils and land management. SMS. GA: 101000258. DOI: 10.3030/101000258 18 PREPSOIL identified four land-use types—agriculture, forestry, urban, and industry—while SOILL recognises five: agriculture, forestry, urban, industry, and natural/semi-natural areas, in accordance with the agreement with representatives of the European Commission. 19 Campodonico, G., & Gelabert, M. Y. (2024). PREPSOIL Report on LL/LH taxonomy, identification and mapping feeding the online interactive atlas (D4.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13255005 35 4.2 The PREPSOIL taxonomy and assessment To ensure the harmonised development and growth of the network of LLs/LHs, PREPSOIL developed a taxonomy to promote clarity and cohesion among soil health initiatives. By categorising LLs and LHs according to specific land use types – agriculture, forestry, natural, urban, and industrial – the taxonomy enables a precise identification of unique characteristics, criteria, and requirements. This structured approach not only aids in understanding soil health practices but also fosters knowledge sharing and collaboration among stakeholders and initiatives across Europe, navigating the soil health complexities and align effectively across multiple objectives. A dedicated pre-assessment form was developed jointly between PREPSOIL and SOILL with support of the SOILL pilot group to evaluate LL initiatives based on their alignment with the Mission Soil criteria. Taking as reference the PREPSOIL taxonomy, it distinguishes between fully aligned, potentially aligned, and non-aligned initiatives, while also highlighting the support needs and encouraging selfreflection. The assessment form supplements the PREPSOIL self-registration form by introducing an additional set of closed questions, tailored to the type of initiative - specifically, whether it involves LLs, LHs, and/or ES. Upon completion of the assessment, "invitation criteria" are applied to identify candidates for further evaluation under SOILL, supporting their classification as either Type 2 - European Soil LLs/LHs or Type 3 - Emerging Initiatives (Figure 1). 4.3 Mapping and evaluating LLs: insights from the PREPSOIL assessment A total of 133 previously mapped LL initiatives were invited to participate in the PREPSOIL assessment, including 76 inherited from the SMS project. The primary aim was to evaluate how many registered initiatives meet the Mission Soil criteria and to identify which requirements remain most challenging. Evaluation status & results The results offer a clear view of the current landscape. Figure 20 shows the number of evaluated initiatives that met the Mission Soil criteria, distinguishing between LLs (LLs or LLs with ESs/LHs) and standalone ESs or LHs. Out of the 30 LLs (LLs or LLs with ESs/LHs), only eight (26.7%) fully met the criteria. In contrast, 16 of 29 (55.2%) ESs/LHs met the criteria, indicating higher alignment among ES/LH initiatives. Figure 20. Initiatives assessed and criteria met Whereas Figure 21 illustrates the distribution of 64 responses to the PREPSOIL assessment by initiative type and origin. Among the inherited group, there were 13 LLs, 10 LLs with ESs/LHs, and 21 standalone 30 8 29 16 TOTAL EVALUATED MET CRITERIA Evaluation results by initiative type LL or LL with ES/LH ES or LH only 36 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 ES/LH initiatives. The new registrations included three LLs, six LLs with ES/LH, and 11 ES/LH. This distribution highlights a balanced and diverse participant pool, drawing from both existing networks and new stakeholders. Out of the 64 responses received, 59 were included in the final analysis, as five submissions lacked sufficient information. Of these, 30 were either LLs or LLs with ESs/LHs, while 29 were standalone ES or LH initiatives. In total, 24 of the 59 evaluated initiatives - equivalent to 41% - fully met the Mission Soil criteria. Among them, only eight of the 30 LL-related initiatives (26.7%) were compliant, compared to 16 of the 29 ES/LH initiatives (55.2%). These figures reaffirm that ES/LH initiatives are more consistently aligned with the Mission’s expectations than their LL counterparts. Figure 21. Breakdown of the assessment responses This mix shows a strong representation from both inherited initiatives and new applicants, offering a broad view of the current ecosystem. Key gaps and challenges The assessment also identified the most frequently unmet criteria (Figure 22). The data also reveals critical areas where many initiatives fell short. Within the group of LLs and LLs with ES/LH, one of the most common gaps was meeting the target number of ESs, with half of the relevant initiatives (8 out of 16) failing to do so. Similarly, 6 out of 14 did not have the required number of existing ESs. Governance also emerged as a widespread weakness, with 11 out of 30 lacking a clearly defined governance framework. Among the ES or LH initiatives, the most frequent shortcoming was in achieving full representation of the diverse stakeholders’ group, particularly the inclusion of citizens, civil society, and end-users. This criterion was unmet in 8 out of 29 cases. Demonstration activities were absent in five of the initiatives, and meaningful collaboration with policy actors was lacking in six. 13 10 21 3 6 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 LL LL + ES/LH ES or LH Assessment response breakdown New (PREPSOIL) Inherited (SMS) 37 Figure 22. Overview of criteria results Overall, the results highlight specific structural and strategic areas where LLs, in particular, require further development to fully align with the Mission Soil framework. Improved stakeholder engagement, stronger governance mechanisms, and more robust links to policy processes will be essential for advancing these initiatives and strengthening their contribution to sustainable soil systems. 38 The network of Mission Soil Living Labs: annual report - 2025 5 Conclusions, recommendations and perspectives The first round of M&E conducted under the SOILL-Startup initiative offers a critical snapshot of the current state of the first wave of Mission Soil LLs. This process marks a foundational step in supporting Mission Soil LLs to align with the Mission Soil objectives, ensuring accountability, fostering learning, and guiding targeted support. Notably, the majority of analysed Mission Soil LLs demonstrate to be in an early development stage in most of the sections of the M&E framework. Recommendations for future M&E: 1. Advance communication and onboarding are essential: clear and early communication about the purpose, structure, and expectations of the M&E process is crucial. Future cycles should integrate mandatory onboarding sessions and ensure timely dissemination of key dates and resources. Despite comprehensive materials being shared, many Mission Soil LLs struggled to navigate the self-assessment tools and evaluation procedures. Providing simplified step-bystep guides, interactive walkthroughs, and examples of good practice could greatly enhance preparedness. Confusion around the SOILL Hub and duplicate entries created unnecessary barriers and administrative workload. User testing and real-time support mechanisms should be strengthened in future iterations. 2. Alignment between self-assessment results and external evaluation: a notable trend in the assessment was the consistent discrepancy between self-assessment results and the scores given by external SOILL evaluators. In many cases, Mission Soil LLs overestimated their performance in several M&E sections, often without sufficient qualitative evidence to support those responses. 3. Targeted support and capacity building: many Mission Soil LLs lack regular internal monitoring processes and have limited frameworks to track impact. The core challenges identified are: o Insufficient governance structures and clarity in strategic planning. o Limited demonstration of monitoring and evaluation practices, particularly for impact. o Gaps in stakeholder diversity, especially involving citizens and civil society. o Inconsistent methods for tracking user and stakeholder satisfaction. o Future support from the SOILL framework should focus on strengthening governance mechanisms, fostering co-creation strategies, and enhancing monitoring and evaluation literacy across Mission Soil LLs. 4. Refined tools and guidance: variability in scoring interpretations suggests the need for clearer scoring templates and structured tools for SOILL evaluators to ensure scoring comparability across the network. 5. Community and peer learning: as the network of LLs operating in the soil context grows, fostering horizontal knowledge exchange will be key. High-performing Mission Soil LLs could serve as mentors or case studies for others, amplifying collective learning. This first M&E process offers both a benchmark and a learning opportunity. The insights gathered here will inform future evaluation rounds, reinforce tailored support strategies, and strengthen the capacity of Mission Soil LLs to play a pivotal role in achieving soil health across Europe. As the Mission Soil LLs continue to evolve, the SOILL-Startup project and future SOILL projects must continue to adapt the M&E framework to promote alignment, foster transparency, and ensure meaningful progress toward healthier soils across Europe. The lessons learned from this cycle will 39 directly inform the next steps in supporting the Mission Soil LLs community and enhancing the coherence, quality, and impact of their collective contributions. The results from this first wave also underscore the importance of early and consistent engagement, transparent processes, and an ecosystem-wide commitment to co-creation and shared learning. With these foundations in place, the Mission Soil LLs are well positioned to drive meaningful, measurable, and lasting impact on soil health and sustainability. 40 company/soill2030 @soill2030 [email protected] Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Check our website to find materials and resources to support the Mission Soil Living Labs and Lighthouses and foster collaborations with stakeholders. WELCOME TO THE SOILL COMMUNITY