---
title: who pays to keep the underground living
canonical_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/who-pays-to-keep-the-underground-living
markdown_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/who-pays-to-keep-the-underground-living.md
subtitle: "the mapper flags the gap. timber, farms, carbon, and philanthropy already pay for the failure"
category: nature-finance
---

# who pays to keep the underground living

*the mapper flags the gap. timber, farms, carbon, and philanthropy already pay for the failure*

Ask who pays for **fungal conservation** and you get a short, honest list: a handful of foundations funding the maps, a soil-health practice here, a nursery inoculation there. Ask who pays when the underground network thins and the list gets long, involuntary, and already funded.

Timber already pays in failed seedlings. Working farms already pay in inoculants and extra phosphorus. Carbon offtake already pays for a receipt that is not the hyphae. Water utilities already pay for sediment the soil no longer holds. Philanthropy already paid to find the gap. None of those checks is filed as fungal conservation. All of them are the bill.

## who pays for fungal conservation

Fungal conservation — keeping living **mycorrhizal networks** in the ground — is funded mainly by philanthropy, through science and mapping, not through acres. Agricultural soil-health payments, ectomycorrhizal inoculation in forest nurseries, and a thin slice of soil-carbon projects sit around the edges. The beneficiaries who depend on the network and rarely fund it up front are timber, working agriculture, carbon offtake buyers, and water utilities.

That last sentence is the structural gap. It is nobody's fault, and it is fixable.

If you want the ground under this — what an underground network is, and why it is not dirt, not a metaphor, and not a credit — start with [what underground networks actually are](/guide/what-underground-networks-actually-are?from=guide).

## the mapper is not the buyer

The Society for the Protection of Underground Networks (SPUN) is a US 501(c)(3) founded in 2021 and directed by Toby Kiers at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. They sample soil, sequence fungal DNA, train models, and publish the result: the Underground Atlas for richness and endemism, and A Hidden Infrastructure for hyphal density and biomass.

Van Nuland et al. (*Nature*, 2025) put the first global numbers on the richness gap: **2.8 billion** DNA sequences, about **25,000** soil samples, **130** countries, predictions at 1 km. Only about **9.5%** of mycorrhizal richness hotspots sit inside protected areas — arbuscular mycorrhizal around **5.1%**, ectomycorrhizal around **13.9%**. Plants and animals are covered about three times better. Stewart et al. (*Science*, 2026) then mapped the infrastructure itself: about **1.10×10¹⁷ km** of living arbuscular hyphae in the top 15 cm — roughly 110 quadrillion kilometres — weighing about **300 ± 60 Mt**, some four to six times the mass of every living human. Cropland networks run about half as dense as wild ones. Grasslands hold about **40%** of that biomass and almost none of the protection.

Philanthropy paid for those maps. Grantham Environmental Trust, the Bezos Earth Fund, the Schmidt Family Foundation, Arcadia, Quadrature Climate Foundation, Allen Family Philanthropies, and others are named on SPUN's own funding page. SPUN turns that money into maps. The maps tell capital *where*.

A map is not a check for the land. The mapper is not the buyer. A research nonprofit's budget goes to expeditions, sequencing, and advocacy — not to funding acres. Expecting the organization that found the gap to also close it is how a mapped gap stays a gap.

The payors sit on the land.

## the failure is already funded

Four bills come due where the underground thins. Each has a line item somewhere. None of them says fungi.

**The input bill.** Growers on thinned cropland respond the way anyone would: buy the function back. Market researchers put the global mycorrhizal inoculant market near $1.2 billion in 2024. These are real products from real companies, and many of them do what the bag says. Notice only what the invoice is for — a service the ground used to run without a SKU.

**The seedling bill.** Many conifers cannot establish without ectomycorrhizal partners. Forest nurseries inoculate as routine. Plantation failures on long-cultivated or stripped ground are often an absent fungal partner, paid in the establishment budget after the soil was already gone.

**The carbon bill.** Plants allocate roughly **13.12 Gt CO2e per year** into mycorrhizal mycelium — about 36% of 2021 fossil-fuel emissions (Hawkins et al., 2023). That figure is *allocation*, not a vault. Buyers pay per measured ton on a registry vintage. The network doing the moving belongs to nobody in particular. That distinction has its own post: [a carbon receipt is not a living fungal network](/guide/a-carbon-receipt-is-not-a-living-fungal-network?from=guide).

**The water bill.** Hyphae help bind soil aggregates, and aggregate structure is part of what lets ground take rain in rather than shed it. Utilities pay downstream when it sheds — turbidity, treatment chemistry, lost storage, source-water programs written after the sediment arrives.

Hold both. The grower who inherited tilled ground is not the villain. The inoculant company is selling something that can work. The carbon buyer is doing more than the firms doing nothing. The problem is the *object* each of them holds when the paying is done — a bag, a receipt, a treatment plant, a grant report — none of which is a living network on named ground.

## who already pays, and what an earlier check buys

Five of these already write checks tied to underground condition, usually after the condition fails. The sixth row is the one that mostly does not exist yet.

| payor | the check already written | what an earlier, shared check buys |
|---|---|---|
| **timber — grower, timber fund, REIT** | Nursery inoculation, replanting after establishment failure, slower growth on soils that lost their fungal partners | Intact ectomycorrhizal soil on the stand you will replant in thirty years. Establishment is cheaper where the partner never left |
| **working ag — farm, ranch, food supply chain** | A share of that ~$1.2 billion a year in inoculants, phosphorus priced to overcome a missing partner, yield variability in dry years, soil programs written after the fact | Hyphal density on named fields as a funded condition rather than an annual input — with the operator still the steward, and paid as one |
| **carbon offtake buyer** | Per-ton payments on a registry schedule, plus measurement cost for the slice that can be quantified | A position in the land producing the flow, so the thing you paid for cannot be tilled out from under the vintage you retired |
| **water utility** | Treatment chemistry, turbidity response, storage lost to sediment, source-water protection programs | Infiltration in the upper watershed, held as condition on specific ground above the intake |
| **philanthropy / foundation** | The maps, the expeditions, the sequencing, the advocacy — repeatedly, because nothing downstream is funded | Protection on the specific hotspot your own grant already identified, alongside commercial co-payors rather than instead of them |
| **certificate holder — any of the five, earlier** | Nothing yet, in most places | A funding position in one named agent's account, tied to that place's declared underground condition and the evidence beside it. Not a ton, not a bag, not a deed |

Every row is someone paying real money to keep the underground working, or to recover from its absence. The problem is the *object* each of them holds when they are done paying.

One line, for the memo: **a coin of general ensurance funds the theme broadly; a certificate of specific ensurance holds a funding position in one named agent's account, on a named place, now; a credit is a receipt for a quantified unit that somebody else retires.**

A credit can fund real protection. It is still not the hyphae.

A living mycorrhizal network produces several things at once: nutrient and water delivery to the plants above it, aggregate structure that meters rainfall, a carbon pathway from leaf to soil, and drought recovery. Five outputs, six beneficiaries, and the only parties who have signed anything are usually the landowner and the operator. That is a joint product with diffuse beneficiaries — the oldest underfunding problem there is. Where protection has been funded at scale, one large payor wrote the check and the rest rode free: a foundation round, a Farm Bill practice, a registry project. All of those work. All of them sit one grant cycle from stopping.

We do not publish a subterranean dollar-per-acre. The Ecosystem Services Valuation Database left subterranean biomes out of its 2024 summary tables for lack of estimates; subterranean systems are about **0.08%** of roughly 9,400 monetary records. Price is a bridge. It is not the worth of the fungi.

## this is not the grass bill

Cover and the underground can share a fence line. They are not the same invoice.

[Who pays to keep grass standing](/guide/who-pays-to-keep-grass-standing?from=guide) is the forage-and-fire bill: perennial cover, destock, grassland birds. This page is the network under that cover — hyphae trading carbon for nutrients and water. The 40% biomass overlap is real. The payors are still different people writing different checks.

A pasture that stands can still be a missing underground network. A dense fungal trade does not, by itself, make a prairie.

## what is actually live

Being straight about our stage, since the alternative is the thing this post just criticized.

The stock agent for the underground is live: [`subterranean.ensurance`](/subterranean.ensurance?from=guide). The most directly relevant flow agent is [`healthy-soils.ensurance`](/healthy-soils.ensurance?from=guide).

Volumes are small. We will not dress them up. Across the protocol there are 26 live [certificates](/specific?from=guide); none of them is a subterranean or soils certificate yet. There is no mycelium token waiting in a drawer, and no fungal syndicate taking subscriptions. If anyone shows you one before they show you a parcel, ask which parcel. What exists is the mechanism — funds routing to a named account against a declared condition — at a volume where the first serious payor on a given place writes the terms, not joining a queue.

*Ensurance* is how beneficiaries fund the land that network lives in. It is not the network.

:::johnson
**you already pay for the underground. you pay after it thins.**

Inoculants, replanting, treatment chemistry, the next grant round — the same ground, billed after the fact. Funding the living network on a named place is the same money, earlier, with the hyphae still in it.

[fund a named place →](/specific?from=guide)
:::

## the first rung is small on purpose

Not a program, not a portfolio. One place, four steps.

1. **Name the dependency.** Which fiber basket, which sourcing shed, which watershed above the intake. If you own or operate the land, start at [solutions for landowners](/solutions/landowners?from=guide).
2. **Price what you already pay after.** Inoculant line, replanting cost per acre, phosphorus bill, turbidity response, last grant round on the same geography. That number is the comparison — not zero.
3. **Look at the screen, then name one place.** Pull the public richness and hyphal-density layers over a region you actually care about. At one kilometre per pixel these are regional screens, not parcel surveys. Then pick a specific tract, farm, allotment, or upper-watershed parcel with a steward who will talk.
4. **Fund the living underground first.** Keep the credit if it funds the land. Keep the inoculant if the crop needs it. Hold the place if you want the network. Start with a small position at [`/specific`](/specific?from=guide), or the named accounts above — [`subterranean.ensurance`](/subterranean.ensurance?from=guide) and [`healthy-soils.ensurance`](/healthy-soils.ensurance?from=guide).

If you already know which ground your bill sits on, [start the conversation](/contact?from=guide&topic=underground-networks). One place, one hour.

## sources

[Van Nuland et al., *Nature* (2025) — Global hotspots of mycorrhizal fungal richness are poorly protected](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09277-4) — 2.8 billion DNA sequences, ~25,000 soil samples, 130 countries, 1 km predictions; ~9.5% of richness hotspots protected (arbuscular ~5.1%, ectomycorrhizal ~13.9%); plants and animals roughly 3× better covered

[Stewart et al., *Science* 392(6803):1171–1176 (2026) — Global density and biomass of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal networks](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adu4373) — ~1.10×10¹⁷ km of hyphae in the top 15 cm; ~300 ± 60 Mt biomass; cropland about half as dense as wild land; grasslands ~40% of arbuscular biomass

[A Hidden Infrastructure](https://www.spun.earth/mapping/a-hidden-infrastructure) and [Underground Atlas](https://www.spun.earth/underground-atlas/mycorrhizal-biodiversity) — SPUN public explainers and map viewers; data requests at [spun.earth](https://www.spun.earth/underground-atlas/data-request) under CC BY 4.0

[How we are funded](https://www.spun.earth/about/how-we-are-funded) — SPUN, checked September 2026; philanthropic funder list

[Hawkins et al., *Current Biology* (2023) — Mycorrhizal mycelium as a global carbon pool](https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(23)00167-7) — ~13.12 Gt CO2e/year allocated by plants into mycorrhizal mycelium (~36% of 2021 fossil-fuel emissions); allocation, not permanent storage

[de Groot et al., *Ecosystem Services* (2024)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101606) — subterranean biomes omitted from ESVD summary tables for lack of estimates. [Mammola et al.](https://doi.org/10.32942/x2jm0s) — subterranean systems ~0.08% of ~9,400 monetary value records

Mycorrhizal inoculant market, ~$1.18 billion in 2024 — market-research estimate (order of magnitude, not a primary ecological source)

## the series

- [what underground networks actually are](/guide/what-underground-networks-actually-are?from=guide)
- [you don't have a soil problem. you have a missing underground network](/guide/you-dont-have-a-soil-problem-you-have-a-missing-underground-network?from=guide)
- [a carbon receipt is not a living fungal network](/guide/a-carbon-receipt-is-not-a-living-fungal-network?from=guide)
- [arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal are not the same underground](/guide/arbuscular-and-ectomycorrhizal-are-not-the-same-underground?from=guide)
- [the cheap acre on a rich network](/guide/the-cheap-acre-on-a-rich-network?from=guide)
- [who pays to keep the underground living](/guide/who-pays-to-keep-the-underground-living?from=guide)