Healthy soil worth trillions, yet remains the globe’s most undervalued asset

On 15 July 2026 the world heard two very different sets of numbers: the National Bureau of Statistics of China reported that the country’s economy grew a “4.3 percent” annualised rate in the April‑June quarter, while a recent Greenqueen essay warned that natural‑capital accounting “captures the annual service flows from living soils – nutrient cycling, water filtration, carbon sequestration, flood regulation, erosion control, the biological suppression of crop disease and pests” that together “are estimated at $3.5‑5T annually”. The juxtaposition underlines a paradox that is becoming harder for policymakers to ignore – modern economies are counting the output of high‑tech factories but largely ignoring the billions of dollars of free services that healthy soil delivers, services that could stabilise growth, food security and public health.

The soil essay opens with a side‑by‑side comparison of two farms that look alike on a real‑estate platform. One, located on the American Midwest (with equivalents in the Ukrainian steppe, the North China Plain, and northern Europe), has seen its organic‑matter content fall “from perhaps 5 percent to less than 1 percent” after eight decades of intensive cultivation. Its earthworm population has collapsed, its mycorrhizal network is severed, and it now relies on “increasing chemical inputs” to keep yields steady. Fifty kilometres away, a diversified rotation with livestock, hedgerows and a “4 percent” organic‑matter share maintains a “three times higher” water‑infiltration rate and out‑yields the degraded field in drought years – yet the two parcels are priced “within a few percent of each other”. The author argues that this “categorical accounting failure” means that “healthy soil is almost certainly the most undervalued asset on Earth”.

Media additions

From a financial angle, the essay quantifies the cost of substituting nature’s services. Synthetic fertiliser that mimics biological nutrient cycling sits at a “$200B market annually”, industrial water treatment that would replace biological filtration costs “$700B annually”, and the global pesticide market is “approximately $100B annually”. Yet these markets can only purchase “partial substitutes”. The loss of soil organic matter is quantified by the FAO as “approximately 75 billion tonnes of soil every year due to degradation”. When that loss is valued through climate alone, the “soil carbon lost since the Green Revolution corresponds to tens of trillions of dollars”. Adding replacement costs, productivity losses and ecosystem‑service deficits, the “cumulative value of lost soil function plausibly reaches $100‑250T globally”. That figure represents stock loss, not an annual flow.

Health economists in the same piece connect soil to public‑health spending. The author estimates that “if even 30 percent of the immune‑mediated chronic disease burden is attributable to soil biological impoverishment – a conservative estimate – the annual economic value of soil’s immune‑interface service runs to seven to $11T per year”. The chronic‑disease burden itself “runs to tens of trillions of dollars annually” in welfare costs across developed economies. A parallel “pharmaceutical option value” is drawn from the “roughly $300‑500B annually” documented value of soil‑derived and plant‑derived compounds, extrapolated to a “total pharmacological option value $3‑10T annually” when the un‑screened portion of the chemical library is considered.

Meanwhile, China’s macro data paint a picture of an economy that is “growing at 4.3 percent” – the “slowest growth in more than three years” according to The Guardian and Euronews. The same quarter saw “exports surged 27 percent” in June, buoyed by an “AI boom” and global demand for electric vehicles, while “retail sales grew 1.0 percent” in June after a dip in May. Yet “fixed‑asset investment slid 5.7 percent on‑year” in the first half, and “property investment fell 18 percent”. Analysts such as Yue Su of The Economist Intelligence Unit warn that “domestic demand … remains the weakest link”, and the Chinese government is expected to “place greater emphasis on boosting consumption” in the second half of the year.

The convergence of these narratives is more than a coincidence. Agricultural productivity underpins the very exports that keep China’s growth afloat. As the soil essay notes, fields with “4 percent” organic matter “require a fraction of the chemical inputs” and “out‑yield the degraded field” in drought, a crucial advantage for a country that relies on “high‑tech manufacturing” but still feeds a population of 1.4 billion. If the “1.5 billion hectares of degraded agricultural land globally” – an area “larger than the entire land surface of Russia” – were restored, the “restoration potential dwarfs any other available intervention”, according to the essay. The obstacle, the author argues, is a “coordination problem”: costs fall on farmers, while benefits accrue to “communities whose water is filtered by healthy soil, to children whose immune systems are calibrated by microbial diversity, to insurers whose flood and drought claims are lowered, to the climate system that benefits from carbon sequestration”.

Key figures at a glance

• Soil service flows: $3.5‑5T annually (natural‑capital accounting)
• Replacement‑market equivalents: $200B fertiliser, $700B water treatment, $100B pesticides
• Cumulative stock loss: $100‑250T globally
• Immune‑interface service value: $7‑11T per year (conservative estimate)
• Pharmaceutical option value: $3‑10T per year (un‑screened potential)
• China Q2 2026 GDP growth: 4.3 percent (National Bureau of Statistics)
• China export surge: 27 percent in June (customs data)
• Fixed‑asset investment decline: 5.7 percent YoY (first half)
• Property investment decline: 18 percent (first half)

Timeline of recent developments

What does this mean for investors, policymakers and the public? First, the “natural‑capital accounting” framework that values “annual service flows” is missing the “complexity service” that links soil to human immunity. Second, the “coordination problem” highlighted in the soil essay mirrors the “weak domestic demand” that Beijing is wrestling with, a mismatch between the costs of transition and the broad societal gains. Third, the scale of the challenge – “1.5 billion hectares of degraded land” – suggests that any policy response will have to be multi‑layered, blending fiscal incentives, supply‑chain standards and perhaps new accounting rules that allocate a share of the “$7‑11T” health benefit back to farmers.

In short, the numbers are sobering: billions of tonnes of soil lost each year, trillions of dollars of ecosystem services un‑priced, and a major economy stumbling over a “weak domestic demand” gap that could be narrowed by restoring a natural asset that already underpins food production and public health. Recognising soil as a core capital asset—not a peripheral environmental externality—may be the missing piece that helps both the global climate agenda and the next round of growth plans for economies like China. The next quarter will test whether governments can move from “reasonable range” statements (“the national economy operated within a reasonable range”, NBS) to concrete incentives that reward the “self‑improving investment” that healthy soil represents.