Changing global finance and policy frameworks

The global food system is at a critical juncture; facing issues like soil degradation, climate risk, and biodiversity erosions are converging with investor and regulator expectations in ways that make “business as usual” harder to defend. Global estimates show agrifood systems account for about one-third of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions when farming, land-use change, and supply chains are included.  In response, a powerful combination of regulatory, financial, and scientific forces are converging to transform agriculture from a linear, extractive model to a complex, interdependent system of regeneration. 

What is new is not the ambition to farm more sustainably; it is the growing push to make regenerative claims comparable, verifiable, and investable.

Shifting from standard practice to an outcome-based framework

One reason regenerative agriculture has been difficult to operationalise is definitional drift for crops, climates, and supply chains have used the common label to mean different things. The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform has responded by promoting an outcome-based approach that is designed to be globally consistent while remaining locally adaptable. Its Regenerating Together materials describe a structured implementation pathway that starts with context and risk, narrows to outcomes, then selects practices and monitors progress; explicitly avoiding a one-size-fits-all checklist. Scientific evidence now explicitly links specific practices, such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, to measurable improvements in soil health, water-use efficiency, and nutrient management.

This “outcomes first” logic matters because it shifts attention from whether a farm is using a fashionable practice to whether the farm is actually improving key indicators (for example, soil condition, water dynamics, and biodiversity-related outcomes) in a way that can be tracked over time. 

Verification cannot stop at the farm gate if brands and financiers are making claims about entire supply chains. That is why programmes such as regenagri have been updating standards that address both on-farm criteria and downstream controls. It is positioned as a framework for verifying the content of regeneratively grown products through the supply chain, and its chain-of-custody standards set requirements for organisations that take legal ownership of certified product flows. 

In practical terms, this is a shift from “trust me” sustainability narratives to documentation and assurance structures that resemble established provenance models in other sectors.

Role of Biodiversity

Regenerative agriculture is increasingly valued for enhancing biodiversity alongside soil health. Evidence shows practices like habitat protection and reduced chemical use can increase pollinators by 20–35% and beneficial insects by 10–25% compared to high-input systems. IFC has introduced a framework that shifts the focus toward meaningful corporate commitments. For policy and finance stakeholders, biodiversity outcomes translate into risk management; reducing input dependency, improving water efficiency, and strengthening resilience to climate and market shocks. The IFC’s “3Rs” framework—Resilience, Restoration, and Reduction—captures this integrated approach. It identifies three co-dependent core impact areas:

• Resilience: Enhancing farmer livelihoods to withstand environmental and economic shocks.
• Restoration: Rebuilding soil fertility, biodiversity, and natural resource cycles.
• Reduction: Minimizing on-farm GHG emissions intensity and sequestering carbon.

Under the International Finance Corporation framework, “Restoration” is a core impact area focused on rebuilding soil fertility and ecosystem services through biodiversity. This aligns with the EU Nature Restoration Law, which mandates reversing pollinator decline and restoring 20% of land and sea by 2030.

While regenerative transitions require upfront investment, nature-based solutions can raise farm profits by ~19% over time. As definitions and metrics standardize, regenerative agriculture becomes more financeable, enabling investment tied to measurable outcomes rather than intent.

Regulation is rapidly shifting from voluntary ambition to binding obligations. 

The EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation (effective August 2024) mandates restoration of at least 20% of land and sea by 2030, with full ecosystem recovery targeted by 2050. Complementing this, Directive (EU) 2025/2360 on soil monitoring and resilience establishes a harmonised framework to achieve healthy soils by 2050.

The EU has also introduced the first voluntary standard for permanent carbon removals, including biochar (BCR) and direct air capture (DACCS), under the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation, creating a certified carbon credit market that rewards farmers for sequestration and ecosystem restoration.

To ensure credibility, Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 sets a robust certification system, with initial methodologies adopted in February 2026. Together, these developments expand opportunities for regenerative agriculture while significantly raising evidence and accountability requirements.

The adoption bottleneck: transition risk and capability gaps

Despite momentum, transition is rarely frictionless. New practices can introduce short-term operational risk (learning curves, equipment adjustments, altered pest dynamics), and benefits may take multiple seasons to stabilise. In the early stages of transition, yields in regenerative systems may be 5–10% lower than conventional systems as soil biogeochemical dynamics rebalance. Smallholders, who operate on thin margins, are particularly vulnerable to these initial risks and often lack the technical knowledge or credit access required for adoption.

Policy and finance can reduce adoption bottlenecks when they provide:

• Stable incentives aligned with multi-year biology and measurement cycles;
• Robust monitoring and verification that rewards real outcomes and limits greenwashing risk;
• Inclusive finance and advisory models that acknowledge local climate, crop systems, and farmer constraints. 

The future of agriculture lies in the successful integration of these diverse forces. By aligning scientific evidence with stable governance and innovative finance, the global community can transform marginal lands into productive laboratories for ecological and economic regeneration. As demonstrated by place-based experiments like the Cilento experiment in Italy, when institutions, researchers, and farmers co-design these pathways, regenerative agriculture becomes the framework for a truly sustainable and inclusive food system.

END OF ARTICLE