Almost every article you read about regenerative agriculture these days includes a line like “Regenerative agriculture is difficult to define . . . “ or “There is no single definition of regenerative agriculture.”
- A number of definitions are floating around, but none have consensus backing.
Since we were one of the first groups to popularize the term, we decided it was time to throw our hat in the ring with a definition of our own.
Why it matters:
- Without a clear definition, regenerative agriculture is prone to green-washing. Then any ol’ farm can call itself regenerative, and the term loses any meaning at all.
- Research into the efficacy of regenerative agriculture needs to be well-targeted: how can a study be valid if it’s studying the wrong thing?
- Billion of dollars in investment from both public and private sources is being distributed to enhance adoption of regenerative practices: will they fund projects that actually make a difference?
As we were forming our definition, we felt these aspects were vital to include:
- Inclusive. Any sort of “us vs. them” mentality turns people off and hampers widespread adoption.
- Context-dependent. There’s no black and white in regenerative agriculture.
- Outcome-oriented. To boil it down most simply: Regenerative agriculture is agriculture that regenerates. Its imperative is the outcome: regeneration. There are innumerable valid processes that can get there. Other forms of agriculture, like organic, are process-oriented, and defined by which practices are allowed. The downside is that they can create a wide range of outcomes, some of which are suboptimal.
|
