Introduction

Calls for regenerative agriculture have dramatically increased, especially in recent years. Although many believe it holds promise for a more sustainable form of agriculture in support of food security, the term is liberally applied which dilutes the potential for creating authentic and widespread change. Like other complex concepts before, progress gives way only after the meaning of ideas are debated, dissected, evolved, adapted, and comprehensively understood. For example, the UN Sustainable Development Goals1 follows decades of debating the concept and definition of sustainability2,3,4. Likewise, soil health goals and initiatives5,6 have followed similar efforts to define and understand the term7,8,9. For the concept of regenerative agriculture to contribute value towards a brighter future, we need a deeper understanding of what it is. Currently, there is no consensus on what defines regenerative agriculture10. To date, the discourse to define regenerative agriculture is organized around a rubric of agricultural approaches to food production (the practices) or the outcomes (the goals) without profound thought about how regenerative agriculture may or may not translate into a more comprehensive understanding of agricultural sustainability. Here, I offer a perspective to stimulate discussion and develop a conceptual framework for regenerative agriculture.

Because regenerative agriculture falls under the umbrella of sustainable agriculture, let us briefly consider the historical trajectory of the concept of sustainability, and consider why some analysts may prefer the adjective regenerative to sustainable. Acknowledging that a large body of literature has amassed on the concept of sustainability, only a brief description is provided here as context, whereas more comprehensive descriptions of the history of sustainability are presented elsewhere3,4,11. The concept of sustainable development first emerged in the 1970s, when different works warned about the need to establish limits on the western development model. One of the earlies definitions of sustainable development is development that meets the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs2. Since then, the theoretical framework, meaning, limitations, and possibilities of the concept has been dissected, debated, and built upon. In the 1990s and onward, the concept morphed into ‘sustainability’, and the three-pillar framework materialized where sustainability is thought to reside at the intersection of social, economic, and environmental pillars or values4. Today, definitions emphasizing different meanings have been applied according to different schools of thought that typically require adopting a stance to define a subject3. For example, sustainability is often applied as a systems-describing concept but also as a goal-describing concept11. Despite these nuances, sustainability has been consolidated in various fields of knowledge—including agriculture. As an adjective to describe the form of agriculture, some analysts find that the term sustainable implies a focus on permanence, for example, describing the sufficient efforts to maintain the system, or to reconcile overlapping goals. Others prefer the term regenerative, as it seems to evoke a greater sense of improvement, for example, efforts to rebuild a system and/or our goals. Latently held relational values (values that emerge from human-nature relationships or meaningful relationships between people that happen in nature) may also explain why some are drawn to the term regenerative agriculture12. With this article, my aim is to help clarify the concept of regenerative agriculture, not only as it applies to farm-level production but also its relevance to the broader food system; and to discuss how it may help us move forward in our quest for a better future.

Regeneration and degeneration of a living natural system

First, let us consider the term regenerative and let us frame the term in the context of natural science and as applied to a living system, particularly ecosystems. At its root, the word implies that there is first some degree of degeneration. Degeneration of a living system illustrates a decline or break-down in its vitality, ultimately towards a deterioration or collapse of the system. Degeneration is a progression due to active or passive forces. For example, systems degenerate due to actions such as resource extraction, deposition, contamination, or a major shift in environment; or systems are left to degenerate due to neglect, a lack of tending or stewarding. Either way, degeneration proceeds when the forces of degeneration are not counterbalanced.

If degeneration is severe, the ecosystem may cease functioning as it did before and shift to a new state of functioning (i.e., desertification of a former grassland). So, although the former system may have degenerated, a new system (and a different form of functioning) may take its place. Whereas shifts in ecosystem stability and persistence are natural, the concern surfaces when the shift is caused by our anthropogenic impacts, and unnecessarily so. Thus, to apply the terms (degenerate and regenerate), one must first categorize or classify the type of ecosystem in question; and, consider the frame of reference, time, and change in ecosystem functions.

Here, the term ‘ecosystem function’ is better described as ‘ecosystem processes’, articulating the processes going on in an ecosystem—that is, the biological, chemical, and physical actions or activities that link organisms and their environment13. Examples include primary production, organic matter turnover/decomposition and nutrient cycling, herbivory, and water cycling. While such processes take place in any given ecosystem, the degree, rate, and interrelationships that underpin the processes are different depending on the ecosystem, and according to our expectations upon classifying an ecosystem. For example, to classify what was once a grassland as what is now an agricultural system, the system is now framed by certain expectations or goals about agricultural productivity. The analysis turns to how well the processes are (or are not) working within this system. If we accept that degeneration of a living system is defined as a progressive decline or break-down in vitality, and we apply this term to agroecosystems, then the degenerating force must be acting on the processes responsible for creating this living system. Answering the question ‘are the ecosystem processes within the system degenerating’ would involve an intimate knowledge and understanding of the system—that is, the biological, chemical, and physical actions or activities that link organisms and their environment.

Regeneration of a living system invokes a revival or reinforcement, where the system progresses from a deprived state of functioning towards a revitalized state of functioning. If we accept this pattern and apply it to agroecosystems, then a regenerating force would counteract any degeneration of the ecosystem processes that are responsible for creating this living system. To regenerate a living system, the direction and rate of change must be considered. First, the trajectory of change must counterbalance the decline, and the rate of change must match or exceed that of the degeneration process. If the regeneration process does not meet both criteria, then the system would still be on a degenerative trajectory.

Regeneration, as applied to agriculture, is not the same thing as restoration or reinstatement of an ecosystem from an earlier period or state because the reference period or state is entirely ambiguous and may not be “agricultural”. Ecosystems are in a constant state of flux even if homeostasis is achieved around a broader equilibrium. This brings into question the expectations, goals, or values around ecosystem stability and persistence. Rather, I imagine that regeneration means supporting the functioning of an ecosystem as to avoid degeneration towards an ultimate collapse. Regeneration involves at minimum, maintaining the interconnectedness of ecological processes that work together to create a healthy ecosystem. When certain ecological relationships are completely severed, the ecosystem would presumably enter a period of degeneration (malfunctioning relative to its earlier state) until something else fills or replaces the connection. For example, within a given area, a mixture of diverse species may form the basis of a well-functioning ecosystem, until it was cleared and planted with a single plant species. In doing so, many ecological relationships among the flora, fauna, minerals, air, water, soil, rocks would have been damaged or severed in that given area, and perhaps surrounding area. However, a new ecosystem state would have been born, but this time, a new factor is involved: desired functioning, human needs and wants. We are, after all, a part of the ecosystem and our actions are a consequence of our intentions (i.e., the intention and need to produce food). To sustain this new state of desired functioning (i.e., food production), other forms of connections are necessary to sustain its balance before further degeneration occurs. For example, pests must be managed, soil must be fertile (or at least non-deficient in minerals), etc. Managing these things in a way that does not support the overall functioning of this ecosystem would also be degenerative. As such, regenerative management implies that there is some level of knowledge and ability to predict how different management practices will influence the ecosystem functioning—hence the importance of our collective and accumulated understanding of processes and connections across the four spheres (biosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere) and scales (temporal and spatial).

Because regeneration implies a direction of change over time and in a given space, the variables of time and space are critically important. For a practice to be truly regenerative, we must consider the site specifics. For example, at site A, the soil organic matter or biodiversity or nutrient cycling/recycling abilities might be declining over time (representing degeneration), and thus, regenerative practices must target and counteract this particular form of degeneration. At site B, perhaps the contaminant filtration is the ecological process that is declining, and so the regenerative practice should target this process. Thus, applying the term regenerative should be very much grounded in science, measurements, metrics, and a comprehensive understanding of the ecology of the specific site. The risk here is that the term gets used haphazardly and without scientific evidence, when it should in fact be very much grounded in science and evidence and explicitly focus on ecosystem processes.

Previous definitions of regenerative agriculture

Various descriptions of regenerative agriculture have been proposed. Largely, these interpretations characterize regenerative agriculture as an approach to food production by specifying a group of agricultural management practices (such as soil health management practices) or by specifying the intentions, goals or outcomes of implementing such practices10,14,15,16,17,18,19. Early definitions consider it as a form of agriculture with increasing levels of productivity, increasing the land and soil biological production base14, or link it closely to organic and ‘low external input agriculture’, highlight the importance of biological structuring, progressive biological sequencing and integrative farm structuring15. It has been thought to have a high level of built-in economic and biological stability, with minimal to no impact on the environment beyond the farm or field boundaries14; and associated with several specific technologies or approaches (nitrogen fixation, integrated nutrient management, crop rotation, integrated pest management)15. Regenerative systems have been viewed as semi-closed16, for example, those designed to minimize external inputs or external impacts of agronomy outside the farm; and where the inputs of energy, in the form of fertilizers and fuels are minimized and recycled as far as possible17. It has been defined as an approach to farming that uses soil conservation as the entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple provisioning, regulating, and supporting ecosystem services, with the objective that this will enhance not only the environmental, but also the social and economic dimensions of sustainable food production19. The tension around regenerative agriculture’s definition has been linked to distinct discourses contributing to the concept, and researchers have identified nine different perspectives leading to the different interpretations20. Consequently, there are many definitions, but definitions are largely based on agricultural approaches (the practices) or outcomes (the goals); thus, researchers recommend that the term be defined by individual users, comprehensively but tailored to specific purposes and context10.

These definitions (or the reluctance to define) are largely unsatisfying, leaving the term as an ambiguous concept, and difficult to determine exactly where it diverges from conventional agriculture. Previous definitions constitute a mere list of approaches or outcomes, without profound thought as to how regenerative agriculture may translate into a more comprehensive understanding of agricultural sustainability, how it aligns with essence of regenerating a living system (as discussed in the previous section), and what theory or system of values it embodies. Only one proposed definition of regenerative agriculture includes a value-system, considering it as a way of farming comprised of entangled values and practices, and founded in Indigenous principles of loving-caring for the Earth21. To continue to move in a better direction and develop better conceptual frameworks beyond the list-making of practices or goals, we can learn from the perils and promises of two other lines of thinking—agroecology and environmental ethics, as subsequently discussed.

Conceptual relationship to agroecology, ecology, and environmental ethics

Regenerative agriculture is often compared with agroecology and related approaches such as organic agriculture and sustainable intensification. Organic agriculture includes many of the practices considered agroecological or regenerative, but its simplified definition is confined to the use of organic inputs instead of synthetic ones as per the regulated nature of organic certification. Sustainable intensification tends to focus on productivity and be less transformative than agroecology22, and the current definitions of regenerative agriculture place it somewhere between agroecology and sustainable intensification18. Regenerative agriculture is aligned with agroecology in emphasizing ecological concepts and principles to food production, and farming with minimal degradation of soil, water, and ecosystem services while producing sufficient, healthy diverse foods for consumption and livelihoods23. Both overlap in the list of production practices that distinguish them from more industrial or conventional production including landscape and farm diversification, intercropping, crop and pasture rotation, silvo-pasture, integrated aquaculture, organic amendments, soil conservation, cover crops, minimizing or avoiding synthetic inputs22. Such practices are also considered under the umbrella of soil health management9, and the soil health movement and growing awareness has largely aligned with both agroecology and regenerative agriculture. However, agroecology is specifically defined by three key elements—being simultaneously a science, practice, and social movement24—and therefore extends to the broader food system including attention to political, sociocultural, humanistic, market, dietary, and ecosystem dimensions22. The socio-economic and political dimensions of agroecology include co-creation of knowledge with stakeholders, participatory processes, building direction connections between producers and consumers, and reducing social inequities25. Most previous definitions of regenerative agriculture fail to articulate these dimensions and instead focus on the agricultural practices or outcomes. Both concepts, agroecology and regenerative, however, face an emerging challenge where their definitions are disputed and re-framed by those who seek to maintain the dominant paradigm for the industrial food system by (i) only adopting some ecological practices and leaving aside the political, social, and cultural principles embedded in agroecology, and/or (ii) failing to anchor regenerative agriculture with a theory or system of values necessary for more environmentally-friendly forms of agriculture.

I believe there is an opportunity for regenerative agriculture to add something new to agroecology, as it has the potential to offer a conceptual resource for framing, debating, and attempting to resolve the interconnected agricultural and environmental problems by bringing a new discipline into the fray—agricultural environmental ethics. To explain this line of thought, let us next consider agroecology, ecology, and environmental ethics as branch of moral philosophy, and the implications for agricultural science.

Agroecology originates from ecology and applies it to our food systems26. Ecology is the study of relationships between organisms and the environment. Where ecology focuses on understanding the elements, relationships, and functions of ecosystems via a systems-thinking approach, the philosophical and ethical dimensions for how we should influence ecosystems is guided by a different discipline, environmental ethics. Pioneering ethical frameworks that have shaped environmental thinking include deep ecology27 and the land ethic28, giving rise to environmental stewardship—belief systems that articulate our moral responsibility for the environment. Environmental ethics require us to consider and/or prioritize the ecological consequences of our actions. However, determining moral responsibility becomes complicated when attempting to apply the existing environmental ethical arguments to agricultural settings. For example, deep ecology articulates that the biosphere should be respected and that non-vital human interference with the natural world is wrong27; and the land ethic determines a thing is morally right if it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community28. Such lines of thinking are easier to accept and apply within natural systems and have consequently shaped concepts such as environmental preservation and conservation. It is difficult, however, to reasonably apply these frameworks to agricultural systems; because agriculture is, by its very nature, an inherent all-encompassing human interaction with the environment; and because the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community is inherently disrupted by agricultural activities.

Unfortunately, agroecology has not provided an alternative environmental ethic that centrally grounds agriculture within the environment, instead of adjacent to it. To be fair, agroecology has made significant progress on advancing ethical dimensions around human and social values26,29,30 as it directly embeds participation, localness, fairness, and justice as foundational elements31. The environmental ethic for agriculture, however, is indistinct. Agroecology articulates its principles and practices as not only sustainable but helping to restore and protect Earth’s life support systems for all people and future generations31—but it does not provide an ethical argument in a philosophically satisfactory way to address agricultural environmental problems. This articulation of agroecology seemingly grants worth to Earth’s life support system for anthropogenic reasons and lacks an ethical argument to address agricultural environmental problems. For example, the focus on restoration and protection is difficult to apply in agricultural systems, where humans inherently interact directly with the environment (not outside of it). Because agroecology is simultaneously a science, a practice, and a social movement24, the emphasis is typically on the process for transformation rather than the substance. For example, the process is characterized by a plan of action (the applied practice, be it political or collective action), and the methods to achieve it are informed by agroecological models that predict outcomes when elements, relationships, and functions of an ecosystem are altered, affected, or controlled (by implementing agroecological practices). Scientific advancements are made when we better characterize the system with scientifically grounded authority, and to draw recommendations for human activity such that the state or condition of the system is supported. Agroecological science works to produce a sufficient characterization of the agricultural system (for example, via systems-modeling), such that we can predict the outcomes of implementing the agroecological practices at multiple scales. However, what are the ethical arguments for or against action, and what role do they play in guiding the process, and what are our moral responsibilities when it comes to agriculture and the environment? Although agroecology as science, a practice, and a social movement is in many ways positive, and intended to help to transform agriculture for the better, it might be more possible if supported by a stronger environmental ethic, one that is grounded in agriculture. The lack of an agricultural environmental ethic is not a problem only suffered by agroecology, it is applicable to agricultural science in general; I raise this here because many simply assume that agroecology offers an environmental ethic for agriculture, when more work is needed.

We need a better conceptual resource for framing and debating agriculture, and for resolving environmental problems. We need a broader, more sensitive, and more complete approach to environmental issues when it comes to agriculture. Perhaps the concept of regenerative agriculture can help the transition to agroecological practices, by offering an agricultural-environmental ethic32. To do so, however, we must move beyond the simplistic approach to defining regenerative agriculture by listing the eligible agroecological or soil health practices. We should take this current opportunity, in debating the definition of regenerative agriculture, to explore moral philosophy for agriculture and the environment, how we ought to practice agriculture, how do we decide what is right and wrong—and why, and what ethical challenges are we facing as we practice agriculture inherently within the environment. Calls for integrating philosophy with agricultural science are not new26,33 and yet few have done so34,35.

A new definition for regenerative agriculture

It is rare that agriculture and moral philosophy are combined, but doing so has the potential to provide a deeper understanding of the challenges and solutions for more sustainable agriculture; and regenerative agriculture is a promising integrative framework to bring the two disciplines together32. Here, I elaborate on my proposed definition for regenerative agriculture: “an ecological approach and ethic for our agricultural system that involves reciprocity with the land, to support ecosystem processes with the goal of nurturing the environment”32. Prioritizing such an agricultural ethic may lead to a prosperous and healthy environment, society, and culture.

Notice, in this definition, that regenerative agriculture is conceptualized as an approach and an ethic, integrating the disciplines of agricultural science and philosophy32. The approach is characterized by practices aimed at supporting the ecosystem processes (the interconnections and relationships between elements) thereby supporting ecosystem elements themselves—and in doing so, degradative forces should be counteracted. Importantly, the ethic implies that we grant worth to the ecosystem processes, thus valuing the relationships between and among the elements of the agricultural environment, which we are inherently a part of and interact with. In this view, environmental constituents such as land, plants, soil, water, air are included as morally worthy due to their roles in interconnecting and giving life, and likewise for biotic constituents. Whereas other environmental ethics distinguish right from wrong based on whether a thing tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community or not28, or to limit human interference27, a regenerative agriculture ethic allows for natural shifts in ecological stability due to cultivation but draws the line when the ecological processes are damaged, degraded, or severed32. In this reasoning, fostering (as opposed to damaging) the ecological interrelationships are valued.

Another keyword in the proposed definition is reciprocity. The word originates from the reciprocus in Latin, which means moving backwards and forwards. This word fits well with the concept of regenerative agriculture, because it implies a direction of change, illustrative of efforts for rebuild after degradation. Applying the word reciprocity to ecosystems implies that there is a form of exchange for shared benefit. This term is important to the definition because it necessitates a rather exact exchange, as opposed to a generalized list indiscriminate approaches or practices (which may not be suitable for the system in question). Let us consider an example. If nutrients are removed from an agroecosystem in the form of crop yields, and boundaries are drawn only around this given agroecosystem, then would it not be “reciprocal” to add nutrients back into the agroecosystem (either organic or synthetic), balancing outputs with inputs? Perhaps by simple math, but not in an ecological sense. The balance must consider the forms, biological availability, and processing of the inputs that are intended to balance the outputs. To use the “apples to oranges” colloquialism, removing apples might not be balanced by adding oranges, in terms of the overall ecosystem functioning and health. So, reciprocity in an ecological sense would not just involve a simple exchange, but rather a mutual benefit grounded in ecological processing and functioning. If agroecology informs the knowledge and understanding (at an ecological level) and describes the movement (at a political and social level), I suggest that regenerative agriculture forms the moral responsibilities to guide the process for environmentally-friendly agriculture.

If the term regenerative agriculture is only to be understood as a set of agricultural approaches to food production (the practices) or the outcomes (the goals), it might be easier to develop a form of certification, but it would also present a greater risk of misusing or misleadingly applying a label as a marketing tool rather than an authentic description. If the term is grounded as an agricultural environmental ethical system from which the approaches are informed, it may encourage a more authentic application of the term. Even if this definition for regenerative agriculture is accepted, there are practical challenges that persist. For example, it will be more difficult than organic agriculture to design policy around, because while organic agriculture is defined by the type of inputs used, if regenerative agriculture is characterized as an ethical system and approach (where the trajectory is towards improving a degraded landscape), then this is a much more difficult thing to determine, let alone regulate. It calls for deeper thought into how it might be practiced, controlled, and governed. Perhaps agroecology (and its elements and processes) and the broader pillars of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) offer the actionable political, economic, and social prescriptions for transforming agricultural practices, whereas regenerative agriculture, as an agricultural environmental ethic, can guide the process and form the ethical framework from which progress can (or ought to) be made.

One seminal ethical framework centrally grounded in agriculture is the agrarian vision35. In this philosophy, integrity is shaped by a community’s connection to agriculture and its food system practices, and concepts of soil regeneration are often emphasized due to the attachment to the land. In the agrarian vision, traditional agrarian ideals can be updated and revised for modern society; and because farming remains an integral part of human life, it continues to shape our society by organizing our ways of producing and consuming food. Others centralize Indigenous value-systems directly into a definition of regenerative agriculture, alongside specifying the agricultural practices aimed at fostering soil health21. These two frameworks come the closest, in my opinion, to articulating a more comprehensive concept of regenerative agriculture. Here, I add that we consider regenerative agriculture as more than a set of recommended soil health practices—and directly acknowledge it as a philosophy. I call for agricultural scientists and philosophers to work together to advance regenerative agriculture research and development, both in practice and in conceptual thought. Here, I integrate the proposed ethic into a definition for regenerative agriculture, and I suggest that this line of thought be pursued and debated further, encouraging a diversity of perspectives. Doing so will help map potential solutions to redesign a more sustainable form of agriculture.