Why I Became a Leader and Founder of the International Regenerative Movement

This is an edited version of an article commissioned by the editor of The Organic Standard (TOS), who was curious about why, as a long-time leader in the organic sector and a former President of IFOAM-Organics International, I became one of the leaders and founders of the international regenerative movement. It was published in two parts in TOS 200 and TOS 201. 

The reasons I became involved are complex and varied.

1. We Wanted to Facilitate the Shift Away from Industrial Agriculture

We formed Regeneration International as an umbrella—a partnership of like-minded, nature-based systems to facilitate the shift away from industrial agriculture. A small group of leaders from the organic, agroecology, holistic management, environmental, and natural health movements started Regeneration International as a genuinely inclusive and representative umbrella organization.

The concept was initially formed at the United Nations Climate Change Meeting in New York in October 2014 during a meeting at the Rodale headquarters. The aim was to establish a global network of like-minded agricultural, environmental, and social organizations to facilitate the paradigm shift from degenerate industrial agricultural systems to regenerative, nature-based systems.

The initial steering committee meetings included Dr. Vandana Shiva from Navdanya, Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Hans Herren from The Millennium Institute, Steve Rye from Mercola Health, and me, André Leu from IFOAM-Organics International. It was soon expanded to include key leaders from every continent.

Our founding meeting took place on a biodynamic farm, Finca Nueva Luna, in Costa Rica in 2015. We intentionally chose to host it in the global south instead of North America or Europe, including women and men from every continent to emphasize that regeneration is about inclusiveness. Ronnie Cummins raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover the travel, accommodation, food, and other expenses for all representatives from the Global South. It marked a truly international and inclusive beginning.

The need to form an international regeneration movement was partly inspired by the development of Organic 3.0 by IFOAM—Organics International during my presidency. Organic 3.0 was conceived as an ongoing process that enables organic agriculture to engage actively with social and environmental issues and be recognized as a positive change agent.

Organic 3.0 has six main features. The fourth feature is the “Inclusiveness of wider sustainability interests, through alliances with the many movements and organizations that have complementary approaches to truly sustainable food and farming.”

One aim of Organic 3.0 was to collaborate with like-minded organizations and movements to enhance the sustainability of all agriculture. The diagram below illustrates our initial concept. We believed that by promoting the multiple benefits of organic agriculture to support health, combat climate change, and protect the environment, we could encourage other agricultural systems to adopt some of our methods and thus improve sustainability. Consequently, as organic agriculture expanded, our ability to enhance the sustainability of all agriculture would also grow.

The concept was to position organic agriculture as a positive lighthouse of change to improve the sustainability of mainstream agricultural systems.

However, when forming the steering committee that became Regeneration International and engaging with these like-minded movements, we encountered substantial hostility towards organic agriculture, especially certified organic.

We needed a neutral term that didn’t carry any baggage. Choosing a name that included ‘organic’ or ‘agroecological’ would alienate many potential stakeholders, such as agroforestry, holistic management, permaculture, etc.

We chose ‘regenerative’ as a simple, neutral meme to engage farmers and other stakeholders in a paradigm shift. Most stakeholders recognize the need to regenerate agriculture, and the concept of regeneration resonates strongly with them.

Before 2014, few people had heard of regenerative agriculture. Now, it is featured in the news daily worldwide and is being rapidly embraced by the agricultural community and its stakeholders. Regeneration International (RI) was launched at the Costa Rica meeting in 2015 to promote, facilitate, and accelerate the global transition to regenerative food, farming, and land management aimed at regenerating the environment and eliminating world hunger while rebuilding deteriorated social, ecological, and economic systems.

Many participants in this meeting returned to their countries and began promoting regenerative agriculture through farming organizations, films such as Kiss the Ground, articles, universities, books, and social media. Most people, particularly farmers, readily understood the messages about removing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and storing it in the soil to reverse climate change. They were receptive to the multiple benefits of regenerative agriculture. The concept of regeneration took off worldwide and continues to grow rapidly.

As of this writing, RI has expanded to approximately 700 partner organizations across more than 80 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania, North America, and Europe, with ongoing monthly growth.

 

2. Frustrations with Soil Neglect in the Organic Movement

As an organic farming pioneerfrom the early 1970s, I saw the biggest issue as the movement’s neglect of soil health, particularly soil organic matter, which was rarely included in certification systems, despite typically being the first component of most standards.

The concept of building soil organic matter served as the foundation for the term “organic agriculture” when Rodale popularized “Organic Farming and Gardening” in 1942, drawing on Sir Albert Howard’s research and writings.

I was frustrated that the organic movement, particularly our scientists, researchers, and NGOs, along with IFOAM – Organics International (despite being the President), actively opposed schemes to promote organic farming as a means of increasing soil organic matter to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Other groups understood this, so I decided to work with them, and they embraced the term regenerative.

Soil health and the adoption of agricultural systems that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it as soil organic matter have become significant drivers of the regenerative agriculture movement. Increasing soil organic matter has emerged as a multi-billion-dollar industry—an opportunity lost to the short-sightedness in the organic sector that should have demonstrated leadership.

 

3. Industrial Pressures and the Erosion of Organic Principles

Major concerns and criticisms regarding the hijacking of certified organic practices by industrial agriculture were raised by allies in the agroecology, holistic management, and other movements. These concerns included large-scale, industrial organic monocultures and organic Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs). These CAFOs contradict the essential principles found in most organic standards, such as prohibiting cruelty and allowing animals to express their natural behaviors. The use of synthetic supplements in certified organic CAFOs was perceived as undermining the credibility of certified organic systems. GM vaccines, clearing old-growth ecosystems, and soil carbon loss were the elephants in the room.

Many viewed the acceptance of organic hydroponics—non-soil-based systems—as the ultimate surrender of organic agriculture’s founding values.

The lack of enforcement was viewed as a major issue. These challenges have been and still are significant sources of dispute and contention within both global and national organic sectors. This situation has resulted in numerous public disagreements in the media that have undermined the credibility of organic certification in the eyes of consumers, farmers, and governments. As president of IFOAM, I was frequently asked about this and whether I considered USDA organic to be genuinely organic. Many individuals were openly hostile and skeptical toward USDA-certified products. My response was that while it is not perfect, it is a good standard, and USDA organic is considerably better than non-organic.

These ongoing public disputes continue to undermine the reputation and credibility of organic products and practices. The founders of Regeneration International recognized that bringing these debates about allowable and prohibited practices and inputs in nature-based systems under the broader regenerative umbrella would reduce the negative impact on the organic sector. These important issues pertain to all of agriculture, not just organic agriculture.

 

4. Barriers to Organic Certification for Small Farmers

Certification costs and time-consuming procedures favor large producers, who benefit from economies of scale while disadvantaging smaller family farmers. As the IFOAM president, I visited and listened to more farmers on every continent than any previous president. I traveled each month to different countries and engaged with our stakeholders. Certification was one of the major complaints. IFOAM prioritized farmer-friendly systems like PGS; however, these systems are still largely opposed by national regulators and most third-party certifiers. PGS producers are not permitted to label their products as organic in the main regulated organic markets of the EU and North America. A glaring example is Nature et Progrès, the initial founding organization of IFOAM in 1972, which started one of the first PGS systems but is no longer permitted to use the term organic.

I met many farmers who had dropped certification but still farmed organically. However, they were not allowed to call their products organic and needed another name for their farming systems. Many other farmers used organic methods and did not wish to be certified as organic or even called organic due to perceived negative connotations among the wider farming and research community. They found it easy to refer to themselves as regenerative. The term regenerative has had and continues to have widespread appeal.

Clarifying Regenerative Agriculture

I am often asked about the diversity of regenerative systems and their definitions. In the beginning, we opposed standards because we wanted this diversity to flourish, as it is the source of much innovation. Consequently, regenerative agriculture is the most innovative and exciting space for multiple new farming and ranching systems. Most of this has been developed by farmers, not academics and researchers.

I am often asked about hijacking and greenwashing. This is largely overstated; based on my experience running the world’s largest regenerative organization and meeting with farmers on every continent, this movement is primarily driven by farmers—not corporations, academics, or government.

Articles about regenerative agriculture are featured in the media daily. Most pieces focus on transforming agricultural systems to benefit the environment, especially regarding climate change and soil health. There is a growing movement toward reducing synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers because of their harmful effects on human health and the environment. This is a positive trend as envisioned in Organic 3.0.

Many corporations adopting regenerative systems are improving their soil organic matter levels using techniques such as cover crops.  They are also implementing programs that reduce toxic chemical inputs and improve environmental outcomes.  These actions should be seen as positive changes in the right direction.

The few agribusiness corporations promoting herbicide-tolerant GMOs as regenerative agriculture are not attracting more farmers. In fact, the opposite is true. Farmers aren’t being misled by the spin. Increasingly, they recognize that business as usual is no longer an option. Farming must change, and the concept of regenerating agriculture is both sensible and appealing to them. The reality is that the agribusiness corporations have been scoring own goals by raising global awareness of regenerative agriculture and providing us with mainstream media coverage that we could never afford.

On the same note, the organic sector has been scoring own goals by attacking regenerative agriculture rather than the corporations trying to hijack it. As a result, I have seen increased antagonism against certified organic agriculture amongst farmers at the numerous meetings I attend around the world.

We released the Regeneration International Standard to clarify what is permitted and prohibited in regenerative agriculture. The Regeneration International Standard aims to establish a benchmark that ensures the integrity of our nature-based farming systems. It encompasses and builds on the values set by our pioneers. We use it as a reference document to combat greenwashing and appropriation.

Our goal is to clearly position Regenerative Agriculture within the organic agriculture paradigm of nature-based systems. IFOAM – Organic International’s four principles of organic agriculture serve as criteria to evaluate whether practices are regenerative or degenerative.

Degenerative practices, by definition, are the opposite of regenerative and cannot be considered regenerative. The Regeneration International Standard provides a clear and easy-to-begin transition pathway from degenerative industrial agriculture to a credible regenerative system.

We opted to apply the four principles of organic agriculture instead of relying on national regulatory organic standards like USDA or EU regulations, making it accessible for global use.

Don’t die in a ditch for a name!

As a leader in the regenerative sector, does this mean I am no longer organic? I would strongly argue that I uphold the same principles and practices I championed in the 1970s as a pioneer of organic farming and the first standards. This was a time when books like “The One Straw Revolution” by the Japanese farmer Masanobu Fukuoka, “Permaculture One” by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, and the first books on agroecology by Gliessman, Hart, Cox, and Atkins were published, which strongly influenced my farming.

These authors supported the principles of the international movement initiated by early pioneers, such as F.H. King with “Farmers of 40 Centuries” in 1911, Steiner with “Agriculture,” in 1924, Sir Albert Howard with “The Agricultural Testament” in 1940, and J.I. Rodale publishing the “Organic Farming and Gardening” magazine in 1942.

The farmers from that time, our first pioneers, taught and trained me when I started farming over 50 years ago. They were my mentors. I still farm and have never wavered from my principles and core beliefs.

The regulated, certified organic sector has strayed from our original intentions, having been overshadowed by the industrial food and farming sector, government bureaucrats, NGOs, and academics, which have rendered farmers largely irrelevant. Many organic pioneers of my generation feel saddened by this.

I will not fight over the best name for an agricultural system. There are numerous names for organic agriculture. Organic is the term used in countries where English is the primary language. Is the word “Organic” better than “Bio,” the word used in much of continental Europe? They translate to very different terms yet mean the same. 1.4 billion people in India refer to it as “Jaivik,” which translates to life agriculture. Do we argue about this? No—and rightly so.

Our debates should stay respectful, honest, and grounded in practices and inputs rather than wasting time on names. Currently, the word “regenerative” resonates with farmers. This is a positive development in facilitating a much-needed paradigm shift from degenerative industrial agriculture. In the future, new names will surface for the next paradigm shift.