People. Place. Possibility.
Why
Regenerative?
Healthier food systems depend on more than what happens on a farm. They depend on how we work together.
Regenerative agriculture seeks to improve the ecological functions that food production depends on, while supporting the people who steward and work within those systems. Progress calls for knowledge, capital, markets, accountability, and local leadership.
Explore the network in action
Knowledge. Opportunity. Connection.
Certification & verification
Explore what different approaches assess and how their requirements differ. Consider standards alongside evidence of practices and outcomes.
Explore the guideFollow the conversation.
Explore updates and perspectives on regenerative agriculture and food systems, and the people and ideas shaping the conversation.
Explore the newsFind your next role.
Explore our job board for opportunities across regenerative agriculture and food systems. Put your skills and experience to work.
Explore the job boardA connected food system
Why it matters
Better outcomes.
Grounded in context.
Regenerative agriculture has no single universally agreed definition or recipe. Practices such as diverse rotations, cover crops, agroforestry, and carefully managed grazing can support ecological recovery. Their suitability and effects depend on soils, climate, species, management, history, and social and economic conditions.
Practices and outcomes both matter. Knowing what changed in management helps explain results; measuring results helps test whether those changes are working. A practice checklist alone cannot demonstrate regeneration.
Look beyond a single metric
Carbon matters.
So does everything
that makes life possible.
Carbon sequestration is important, but it can become the sole focus of regenerative agriculture discussions. A fuller assessment gives water, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and climate resilience explicit attention alongside soil health and livelihoods.
Soil carbon gains vary, can be reversed, and do not continue indefinitely. Assess net greenhouse gas effects, including methane and nitrous oxide, rather than treating additional carbon storage as the whole climate story. Carbon gains also do not establish that a project benefits biodiversity or water.
Ask what improved, for whom, over what area and timeframe, and compared with what baseline. Make tradeoffs visible rather than compressing every outcome into a single claim.
Choose practices that fit.
Work with producers and local and Indigenous knowledge holders. Consider water availability, habitat, land tenure, labor, animal welfare, and the realities of the farm business. A useful practice in one setting may be unsuitable in another.
Measure change over time.
Establish a baseline, use consistent methods, and track multiple seasons where possible. Interpret results against weather, management history, and a credible comparison. Be transparent about uncertainty, costs, and what has not been measured.
Make transition viable.
Benefits are difficult to sustain if producers carry the costs and risks alone. Fair contracts, technical support, accessible financing, and secure livelihoods help create the conditions for lasting change. Higher yields, profits, or price premiums are not guaranteed.
Sources & scope of this page
This is an educational overview, not a certification standard. Research on diversification, agroecology, and land management informs the potential benefits described here; it does not validate every practice or product marketed as regenerative. Marine roles are included as part of the wider food system, with distinct ecological considerations.
- FAO: Agricultural diversification and ecosystem services — evidence on potential benefits, variability, and tradeoffs.
- IPCC: Special Report on Climate Change and Land — context, adaptation, and limits to carbon storage.
- FAO: Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation — context and multidimensional assessment.
- Why Regenerative sector reference — used to inform sector coverage, not to infer relationships or performance.