Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kate Congreves, Associate Professor, Jarislowsky & BMO Research Chair in Regenerative Agriculture, University of Saskatchewan
Sustainability has become something of a buzzword over the years. From the clothes we wear and the energy that powers our homes to the way we live our lives, the idea of sustainable production and consumption has become commonplace.
That is also true about the way we grow and consume food. Recently, however, another term has come to the fore: regenerative agriculture. It sounds attractive, somehow better than sustainable, but what does it really mean?
Regenerative agriculture began as a grassroots approach to farming led by farmers. It has been described in many different ways, but a common thread is a set of values.
People might be drawn to the word “regenerative” because it evokes a sense of improvement rather than just maintaining the status quo — for example, efforts to rebuild a system and our values. That last bit — rebuilding not only the system but our values — is really important.
Values often include care for the environment, a responsibility to nature and cultivation of good food. Just like there are many ways to grow food, there are also many languages, voices and histories that express the ways that food can be cultivated in alignment with values.
Read more:
‘Regenerative agriculture’ is all the rage – but it’s not going to fix our food system
The need for an agricultural ethic
It easier to standardize and market a simple list of practices than a philosophically sound ethical framework, but that doesn’t mean ethical frameworks are irrelevant. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that examines concepts of good and bad, right and wrong and our values.
Ethics might be the one thing that agricultural science has been missing but needs the most. Agriculture has been rudderless when it comes to collectively deciding what is or isn’t good for humans and the environment.
Cornerstone ethical frameworks have provided reasons for taking care of the environment, such as the land ethic and deep ecology.
These laid the foundation for important movements supporting nature preservation and conservation, and the United Nations 30 by 30 goal to set aside 30 per cent of the planet for conservation areas by 2030.
These frameworks, however, are easier to apply outside of agriculture rather than to inform agricultural practice within environments. They might often involve protecting land from agricultural use.
Yet agriculture is a part of the environment, not separate from it. We need an environmental ethic that works for agriculture, one that centrally grounds it as part of the environment. This is where regenerative agriculture might help.
A better approach
In my work, I define regenerative agriculture as an ecological approach and ethic for our agricultural system that involves reciprocity with the land, to support ecosystems with the goal of nurturing the environment.
Ecosystem processes and environmental components such as land, soil, water, air, flora and fauna are all viewed as morally worthy of consideration due to their roles in giving life.
A regenerative agriculture ethic would allow for natural shifts in ecological stability due to cultivation, but would draw the line when the ecosystem processes are damaged, degraded or severed. In this approach, regeneration is valued.
Regenerative agriculture can help other movements like agroecology, as opposed to threatening them. Agroecology is a larger science, practice and social movement to build an inclusive food system with political, social, environmental aspects of sustainability. Bringing in an agricultural environmental ethic will help advance this goal.
However, focusing on a “one-size-fits-all” standard for regenerative agriculture and marketing it for profits has left the concept a hollowed version of itself. It has been reduced to a simple list of agricultural practices or outcomes, like ticking off a grocery list.
Generic practices like diversification and soil health management are frequently cited, without specifying the degree of diversification or whether soil health indicators actually improve.
This oversimplification, and convenient marketing use by agrifood corporations, has caused expert panels and researchers to warn the concept has been co-opted. In its narrowed version, the underlying values have been left out.
If regenerative agriculture becomes just another marketable list of practices, then its potential for real transformation evaporates. However, if we pause and prioritize a truly regenerative agriculture ethic, it may lead us to a prosperous and healthy environment and society.
Kate Congreves receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Jarislowsky Foundation and the Bank of Montreal.
– ref. From ‘sustainable’ to ‘regenerative’ agriculture: What’s in a name? – https://theconversation.com/from-sustainable-to-regenerative-agriculture-whats-in-a-name-275209