While it’s interesting to talk about the principles and practices underlying regenerative agriculture, change can only happen if they’re put into practice.
For me it started when I stumbled onto a simple question which I could not answer: is this carrot regenerative or is it not?
This led me down the rabbit hole to try and come up with a definition or some kind of framework to try and measure regenerative agriculture.
The continuum
For me, the most important learning has been that there is no one definition that can capture all aspects.
Ethan Soloviev came up with the Regenerative Agriculture Continuum, which is helpful in thinking about this.
On the one extreme there is degeneration, with farming practices that destroy soil, biodiversity, ecosystems, watersheds, etc.
And on the other extreme is regeneration which regenerates life in every aspect of the ecosystem.
Every farmer, every food product its somewhere between these to.
So if most farmers are somewhere on this journey, how can we express how well they are doing? And what more progress can they make?
Certifications
The first set of tools that can help are the certifications. This boils down to a checklist of what (not) to do.
In Belgium we have certifications for organic or biodynamic (Demeter). Recently also “Agriculture Régénérative” by Cultivae, a farmer cooperative from Wallonia, mostly aimed at grain producers.
Apart from that most of the certifications in regenerative agriculture were created in the USA, with little to no adoption in Flanders, Belgium or even Europe.
On top of this, every label looks at regeneration from its own perspective, more specifically fruit and vegetable cultivation and meat production.
- Regenerative Organic (ROC)
- SAI
- Global Farm Metric
- Savory Institutue
- Land to market
- Demeter
- Certified Regenerative by A Greener World (AGW)
Kiss the Ground has a pretty good overview of what each regenerative certification entails.
Similar to other regenerative labels, it’s not a pass/no pass, but one made up out of different levels, depending on the implementation of certain practices.
Measurement tools
While the labels and certifications aim to bring clarity and trust, there also is a big downside.
For me they are limiting, it’s mostly a list of what things not to do, or a checklist of whether or not you’re doing things.
A different way to answer the initial question is to rephrase it.
Instead of asking whether or not a carrot is regenerative, we ask how regenerative the carrot is.
This reframe unlocked a major understanding for me. It helps to highlight the exact situation right now, and it sheds light on what can be done to improve.
When it comes to measurement tools, there are many options.
The House of Agroecology has a good selection of tools. (Note: while they’re mainly focused on agroecology, there is a larger overlap with the concept of regeneration.)
- DECIDE by CRA-W (Centre wallon de Recherches agronomiques).
- KLIMREK by ILVO
- Score Card by Farming4Climate
- OASIS by Agroecology Europe
- Indice de Régénération by Pour Une Agriculture du Vivant
- TAPE by FAO
- Open Boussole (Open Compass) by Farm for Good (work is still in progress on this one)
Of all current measurement tools, I think the Indice de Régénération is the most promising one.
It’s a very practical tool which I covered in more detail in the article about regenerative food brand Omie.
Downside to labels and measurement
Before closing, I want to write about a big downside that I discovered at the RFSI Europe conference.
Every label or measurement costs a farmer time and/or money.
If you’re just looking at things through your lenses, a single label/audit/form to fill in might seem like no big deal.
But apart from the regenerative perspective, a farmer has to adhere to dozens of rules/regulations, each of which is checked.
Each one adds to the administrative burden which is part of the frustration for the ongoing farmer protests.
Important to keep this in mind and perhaps find ways we can use technology to make this process easier and less of a burden!
Leave a Reply