The agricultural sector is currently facing a process of land degradation, climate change and multiple negative impacts of the wider ecological crisis, which are questioning the sustainability of food production systems for future generations, but also the economic security of farmers themselves. It is becoming increasingly clear that serious changes are needed in the food production system, and regenerative agriculture is emerging as a set of practices with the potential to transform agricultural systems and put them on sustainable foundations.
Although the term regenerative agriculture itself dates back to the 1970s, the current wave of adoption and advocacy of these practices is relatively new and most often comes from farmers themselves. However, while we currently have examples of good practice, we do not have an exhaustive definition of the term and a list of some of the basic elements of regenerative agriculture. In the literature, when defining these elements, some authors focus on the practices themselves, some on the outcomes, and some combine the two approaches. In the field, the range of regenerative practices that will be used on a particular plot of land will depend on the local context.
The benefits of regenerative agriculture approaches are undeniable. From carbon sequestration, emission reduction, and improving soil quality, to restoring biodiversity (above and below ground) and improving resilience to extreme weather events such as drought. Economic benefits are reflected in the reduction of input costs and the associated labour and capital costs. These inputs include fuel for tillage, fertilisers, fungicides and insecticides, and mineral additives. There are also indications of various intangible positive effects of adopting regenerative practices on farmers themselves, such as positive changes in self-perception, improved sense of self-efficacy and emergence of a sense of community among practitioners.
On the other hand, there are certain costs of this transition related to learning, acquisition of new machinery and similar. Although it is possible to go through this process without external financial support (individuals in our region are living proof), for a more massive transition, the state would still have to develop a program of adequate incentives and allocate significant funds for them. We know from research that financial incentives are often not enough, but they are necessary, so we will focus on them in this text.
Financial incentives can have three basic forms in relation to the aspects of regenerative agriculture that are in focus. The first model supports the implementation of certain regenerative practices such as agroforestry, cover crops, etc. The second model rewards farmers for measurable positive environmental outcomes. The third combines these two models.
It is also important to mention one financial mechanism specific to regenerative agriculture that is often mentioned in public discourse, and these are the potential benefits of a carbon trading system, i.e. a form of payment to farmers for carbon sequestration.
This mechanism is problematic in many ways and opens up various possibilities for manipulation.
The main problem is that these mechanisms have been shown not to lead to the intended environmental results. For example, a study published in the journal Nature Communications analysed 2,346 carbon credit projects accounting for almost a billion tons of CO₂ (19% of the total number of credits issued), and it turned out that less than 16% of carbon credits actually reduce emissions. Also, different soils have different capacities for adding organic matter, depending on local geological conditions. Payment by results in this context would be perceived as unfair and would shift the focus away from improving the agroecological system as a whole.
Before any elaboration of basic financial incentive models, we would have to develop a mechanism for recognising the very application of the principles, i.e., the methods of regenerative agriculture. Here too, we can approach the issue in several ways. We can develop models that focus on outcomes (e.g. Savory Institute) or models that combine the adoption of certain practices with adequate outcomes (e.g. Regenified). We also have other programs and attempts to incorporate regenerative models from which we can draw lessons, such as regenagri/regenerative Certified, AGW Certified Regenerative, Soil Regen Regenerative Verified, the Soil Carbon Initiative, Roots Regenerative and Southern Cross Certified.
Compared to organic production, which has developed certification mechanisms, regenerative practices have their own specific challenges. First of all, they are primarily outcome-oriented and, as we have noted, the choice of specific practices varies greatly depending on the local context. It therefore seems that recognition must be based at least in part on specific environmental outcomes. Furthermore, like the term itself, regenerative outcomes are not precisely defined. However, there is some general agreement that outcomes must include environmental, economic and, in a narrower sense, social aspects (e.g. some certifications also include measures of social well-being). Focusing on outcomes makes regenerative agriculture more inclusive and encourages innovation among farmers, which is essential for practices to evolve and adapt to local contexts. We must also be cautious about the possibility of corporate co-optation and branding of regenerative agriculture for the purpose of greenwashing. Here, for example, we have documented cases of the omission of certain regenerative practices that are not in line with the particular interest of a company (e.g., reducing synthetic inputs).
In the context of organic agriculture, the processes of certification and regulation have partly led to the movement being moulded into profit-oriented models that are not entirely in line with the intentions of the original movement as some sort of response to various negative consequences of the Green Revolution.
This has also opened the door to dubious marketing strategies full of misleading narratives and pseudoscientific claims, especially in the context of a market competition with other trends that are seen as rivals (e.g. GMOs).
Certification should not serve for branding products from regenerative agriculture, for selling them at a higher price, nor for shifting social problems in this context onto the consumers. Not only can this approach shift the focus away from addressing the core challenges related to environmental degradation, sustainability of the agricultural sector, and social inequalities, but it has been proven that consumerist strategies do not have the intended environmental impact, and on the other hand, they open the door to consumer deception and deepening class differences.
The goal is to make food as cheap, healthy, and accessible as possible, not for a small segment of so-called “eco-conscious,” eco-hipster consumers to appease their environmental conscience with their wallets or for the purpose of environmental virtue signalling.
In other words, the goal should be to transform the agricultural sector through the mass introduction of sustainable and scalable practices with benefits for as many farmers as possible (sustainability, stability and financial benefits realised in the production domain) and society as a whole, and not to add another commercial trend to the market from which individuals who will be most “resourceful” at marketing, procedures, and other bureaucracy will profit.
The starting point for recognizing the application of regenerative practices could be some form of peer-to-peer mechanism that would be of sufficient quality and affordable in the current social context, in financial terms and in terms of human capacities. Thus, some form of accreditation based on a peer-review principle by the farmers themselves, where responsibility is distributed among community members. This would involve jointly setting standards, making decisions, implementing activities and taking responsibility for assessing the quality of the work done. This approach has the potential to empower the community by enabling practitioners to work together to continuously improve regenerative practices through the exchange of experiences and knowledge sharing. This model can be a starting point for a more complex and formal development of mechanisms for recognizing regenerative practices, with farmers at the core, in order to avoid other social actors developing their own interpretation of regenerative agriculture, depending on their own interests.
If regenerative agriculture is further defined and institutionalized solely through the application of certain practices without a broader strategic perspective and a change in the overall approach to food production, the concept itself risks being co-opted and losing its transformative potential to create a sustainable agricultural system.
