# A framework for nature-positive regenerative agriculture insurance and reinsurance solutions?

Pierre Barthalon

► To cite this version:

Pierre Barthalon. A framework for nature-positive regenerative agriculture insurance and reinsurance solutions?. Environmental Sciences. 2025. dumas-05246966

HAL Id: dumas-05246966

https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-05246966v1

Submitted on 9 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
A Framework for Nature-Positive
Regenerative Agriculture
Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions?

Pierre Barthalon

July 23, 2025

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Abstract

This thesis explores how global (re)insurers can support nature-positive regen-
erative agriculture insurance solutions. It begins by unpacking the definitions of
nature and nature-positivity and traces the historical roots of regenerative agricul-
ture through organic farming, soil conservation agriculture and agroecology — a
potentially transformative framework grounded in biodiversity. It highlights regen-
erative agriculture co-optation, conventionalization and agroecology marginalization
risks. It makes the case for a principles- and ecological state outcomes-based ap-
proach rather than practices-based standards, reflecting how nature-positivity is
most meaningfully understood as nature’s resilience from an insurance sector per-
spective, in the context of ecosystems managed under radical uncertainty. Building
on work from Baumgärtner [2007] recognizing the insurance value of biodiversity
to manage environmental stochasticity, the thesis proposes to leverage both Husson
et al. [2024] agronomic regenerative agriculture framework — centered on photo-
synthesis, homeostasis and agrobiodiversity — and the Savory Institute [2025]’s
Ecological Outcome Verification scheme to define a research agenda focused on the
relationship between ecosystems’ degradation levels, regeneration capital intensity
and ecological states’ transition paths’ risk profiles. Assessing the potential role
of technology and carbon farming in the context of scarce regenerative agriculture
economics data, it advocates for a true "nature-based" low risk/high ecological re-
turn strategic approach to regenerative agriculture, centered on degraded pastures
in agronomic deadlocks.
To Thomas and Florent, who, somewhere on the border between the Sarthe
and Loir-et-Cher departments, were harvesting rapeseed
while I was harvesting the final ideas of my thesis.
# Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to my wife Morgane. Her support for my decision to pursue the FNS course and her dedication to managing our family business during my time at AgroParisTech — as well as my extended absences in French Guyana and Madagascar —, have been invaluable.

To Eramet my previous employer for guiding me towards a worthwhile career break.

To Maya Leroy for establishing this underrated and little-known course, which surpassed all my expectations by providing pure enlightenment throughout. I am deeply appreciative of Jérémy Vendé and all the lecturers at AgroParisTech for their commitment, rigor and open-mindedness, which truly embodied the ambition of this course.

My fellow cohort members made this journey not only intellectually stimulating but also a refreshing human experience, transcending age and ontological differences.

A heartfelt thanks to François Cordelle for his constant reality checks, and for his thorough review of my thesis. After all, a copilot made of flesh and bone is better than an artificial one. To Charles Boissel, our time-tested friendship laid the groundwork for this adventure, and Olivier Michelon, without whose encouragement and insight this journey into environmental sciences might never have begun.

I am also grateful to Philippe Csakvary for giving me the opportunity to join his strong mining franchise at SCOR and above all recognizing the importance of this thesis. My thanks also go to Henri Douche for involving me in SCOR's nature restoration initiatives and acknowledging the benefits of grounding this daunting challenge in the academic field. And to SCOR itself, a company that fosters the kind of environment where this work could take shape.

I need to extend my gratitude to Clément Feger for accepting to be the academic supervisor of this thesis. By design, our interactions were few but always precise and helpful, guiding me on what I think was the right path.

And finally to my father Eric, for ingraining in me his interest in questioning the world's economic "ecology", and in turn, fostering mine in the broader ecology within which it is bound to operate.
# Contents

<table><tr><td>1 Introduction</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2 Background</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2.1 SCOR's activities in context</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2.2 SCOR's initiative for nature: a nature restoration financing catalyst</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 Widening the insurance spectrum to "nature-positive" projects of which Regenerative Agriculture</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>3 Framing the research question(s)</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>3.1 Nature-Positivity: aspirational and relativist</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>3.1.1 The relativist notion of nature</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>3.1.2 The notion of Nature-Positivity: a concept in need of clarity</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>3.2 Unlocking more financing for a Nature-Positive Future?</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, restructuring the economic logic that governs the relation to the natural world from the viewpoint of a reinsurer?</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>3.4 Nature-Positivity: a commercially appealing business opportunity hiding an ocean of risks?</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>3.5 Principles guiding our research</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>3.6 Preliminary questions on Regenerative Agriculture</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>4 Regenerative Agriculture within history of agriculture: roots, concerns, consensus, outstanding questions</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 The limits of Conventional Agriculture</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>4.2 Roots of the "regeneration" concept</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>4.2.1 Organic Farming, the first alternative to Conventional Agriculture</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>4.2.2 Soil Conservation Agriculture to address loss of prime cropland, soil erosion and reduction in soil quality and organic matter</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>4.3 Regenerative Agriculture: the soil and beyond</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>4.3.1 Consensus on regenerating the soil as an outcome, but through what means exactly?</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>4.3.2 Consensus on Regenerative Agriculture's potential to reduce negative externalities and generate positive ones at the ecosystem level, little agreement on exactly which outcomes</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>5 Agroecology (and biodiversity), an interpretive key to Regenerative Agriculture's scale up dimension</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>5.1 Agroecology as a practice, science and social movement</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>5.2 Agroecology: a paradigm apart</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>5.3 Biodiversity, agriculture and the land sparing versus land sharing discussion</td><td>33</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>5.3.1</td><td>Early days: a simplistic view of biodiversity and utility</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.2</td><td>... not accounting for “man-made” biodiversity, planetary boundaries and ecosystem services, at the origin of holism</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.3</td><td>Uncertainties from the land sparing versus land sharing discussion</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.4</td><td>A path towards consensus challenged by the unsettled notion of biodiversity</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.5</td><td>The debated scenarios projected in 2050 and the distributive dimensions</td><td>38</td></tr></table>

## 6 Sustainable intensification, the rise and fall of a sustainable agriculture narrative

6.1 Sustainable intensification: spreading conventional agriculture in African countries? ... 41

6.2 The technical determinism behind sustainable intensification ... 41

6.3 The land sparing versus land sharing debate: strategic alliances at play ... 42

6.4 The decline of sustainable intensification and the rise of Regenerative Agriculture ... 43

## 7 Regenerative Agriculture, the new unsustainable sustainable agriculture hype?

7.1 The Regenerative Agriculture discourse coalition, a fragile convergence... ... 43

7.2 ... overshadowing unbridgeable ontological divergences? ... 44

7.3 Regenerative agriculture: a platform to reclaim relevance for earlier sustainable agriculture narratives or a lowest common denominator? ... 45

7.4 The transformative potential of Regenerative Agriculture: science in action and the carbon-captured “high tech” agriculture co-option risk(s) ... 46

7.5 Regenerative Agriculture: junk agroecology or agroecology within the distributive dimensions repressed by academic circles and grassroots movements? ... 49

## 8 Regenerative Agriculture practices-based standards for insurance solutions: what other challenges?

8.1 Regenerative Agriculture: neither a practices-based definition nor any universal and holistic evidence ... 52

8.2 The four levels of Regenerative Agriculture: should we even define universal (practices-based) standards? ... 53

8.3 Agriculture intrinsically not amenable to practices-based standardization? ... 57

8.4 Standardizing, managing complexity or ironing out heterogeneity, biodiversity and standardizing outcomes? ... 59

## 9 A principles- and outcomes-based framework for Regenerative Agriculture insurance solutions: a more realistic way forward?
<table><tr><td>9.1</td><td>Nature resilience as a standardized and systems-level ultimate outcome?.</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>9.2</td><td>Outcomes- versus practices-based standards, moral hazard downside risk versus option value upside risk</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>9.3</td><td>Ecosystems, a universe of risk or of radical uncertainty?</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>9.4</td><td>Strategy to manage uncertainty: biodiversity?</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>9.5</td><td>Recognizing the insurance value of biodiversity for ecosystem services provisioning under risk, a seminal paper</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>9.6</td><td>Substituting natural insurance to financial insurance, shifting from passive moral hazard nature loss risk to active insurance valuation of biodiversity for nature's restoration</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>9.7</td><td>(Re)insurers as catalysts for biodiversity-based risk management, the Tahoe Donner Association case study</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>10</td><td>A new universal agronomic framework for Regenerative Agriculture: photosynthesis, homeostasis, biodiversity, functional integrity</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>10.1</td><td>Energy, homeostasis and agricultural practices</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>10.2</td><td>Principles: planned biodiversity (agrobiodiversity)</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>10.2.1</td><td>Crop diversity/diversification of which leguminous (farm-level)</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>10.2.2</td><td>Crop diversity/diversification of which agroforestry (farm-level)</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>10.2.3</td><td>Livestock integration (farm-level and/or system-level)</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>10.2.4</td><td>Semi-natural habitats (farm-level and/or landscape-level)</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>10.3</td><td>Regeneration dynamics: non-linearity and adaptive management</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>10.4</td><td>Managing the evolution of (risk changing) production factors through the Eh-Ph couple</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>10.5</td><td>Increased resilience and functional integrity at all scales: ecological states and indicators</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>10.5.1</td><td>Soil organic matter, the mother of all functional integrity indicators (at farm- to system-level), but a lagging one</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>10.5.2</td><td>Other leading and lagging ecosystem health indicators, salient points from a Savory Institute's case study</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>10.5.3</td><td>The "carbon farming/restoration for profit" ecosystem's approach, limits and opportunities from another case study</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>10.6</td><td>A research agenda for broader Nature-Positive insurance solutions?</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>10.6.1</td><td>Extending the framework to any Nature-Positive insurance solutions</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>10.6.2</td><td>Combining the art and science of risk to enhance and add time in Baumgärtner's model</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>10.6.3</td><td>Unlocking capital for nature: leveraging standardized ecological states trajectories for capital insurance</td><td>84</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>11</td><td>Shaping the contours of holistically Nature-Positive Regenerative Agriculture framework?</td><td>87</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>11.1</td>
      <td>Unresolved Nature-Positivity human dimensions, in search for a truly “nature-based” SCOR-centric way forward</td>
      <td>87</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.2</td>
      <td>Rethinking the problem from the perspective of SCOR</td>
      <td>88</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.3</td>
      <td>Nature-Positive food systems: ecosystem health and human health, two sides of the same coin</td>
      <td>88</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.4</td>
      <td>What to do of technology?</td>
      <td>89</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.5</td>
      <td>What to do of the "carbon farming/restoration for profit" ecosystem?</td>
      <td>91</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>12</b></td>
      <td><b>SCOR in Regenerative Agriculture: outline of a strategy</b></td>
      <td><b>93</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.1</td>
      <td>Regenerative Agriculture economics, the art and science of accounting</td>
      <td>93</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.2</td>
      <td>The poster child of investable and insurable Regenerative Agriculture</td>
      <td>95</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>13</b></td>
      <td><b>Conclusion</b></td>
      <td><b>98</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>14</b></td>
      <td><b>List of Acronyms</b></td>
      <td><b>113</b></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
List of Figures

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>"Nature-Positive" projects (Source: SER, amended)</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Overview of TNFD's fundamental concepts for understanding nature</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The core themes of regenerative agriculture in Schreefel et al. [2020]</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Summary of processes and outcomes included in definitions/descriptions of RA in Newton et al. [2020]</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Simplified view of land use strategies for biodiversity conservation</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Planetary boundaries in 2023 (6 now crossed, only 3 in the early days of the LSS debate) [Stockholm Resilience Centre, n.d.]</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>The current challenges for sustainable agriculture narratives, their overlaps, and the potential gap through which regenerative agriculture has emerged in Bless et al. [2023]</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Conceptual framework utilising a genealogical method (Garland 2014) and approaches to transformation [Scoones et al., 2020] in [Bless et al., 2023]</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Four levels of regenerative agriculture in [Soloviev and Landua, 2016]</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Impacts (right side of the diagonal) and ecosystem services provided to the society (left side) for crop production in CA (red), OF (green) and SCA (blue). In this figure, the higher the level (external envelope), the greater the services and the nutritional quality of the productions, and the lower the negative impacts [Duru et al., 2022]</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Feasible and efficient distributions of net income y, in mean-variance space are represented by the income possibility frontier (solid line) [Baumgärtner, 2007]</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Example of multiyear cropping rotation [Boston Consulting Group, 2023]</td><td>74</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Regenerative agriculture key principles adapted from [Boston Consulting Group, 2023]</td><td>76</td></tr></table>
## Professional thesis context

This thesis is part of the full time "Forêt Nature et Société, Management International" specialized master. The purpose of the master it to train experts in strategy and negotiation for international ecosystem management, in the context of ecological, social and economic tensions. The course focuses on the preservation and management of natural and forest ecosystems, with an emphasis on social and management sciences.

The program culminates in the preparation of an individual project, which involves completing a professional internship lasting between four and six months. This internship can be undertaken in France or overseas, during which each participant is required to apply their academic knowledge and practices in a professional environment (such as a firm, company, design office, research institute, association, NGO, international organization, administrative organization, public institution, or local authority). The final step is the writing and presentation of a professional thesis.

This thesis was conducted with SCOR, under the supervision of Henri Douche, Head of Property & Casualty Innovation, at the Group's Paris headquarters. SCOR is a global reinsurer that combines the art and science of risk to protect societies. It provides direct and tailored property & casualty insurance solutions for corporates, as well as property & casualty and life & health reinsurance solutions for insurance companies. Reinsurance companies play a crucial role in providing last-resort capital to spread, share, and absorb a variety of natural and man-made risks.

I felt very privileged to write on such a fascinating topic and I have hopefully approached this endeavor with the humility and intellectual rigor characterizing my AgroParisTech lecturers, who are masters of their art. However, I am a generalist engineer by background, educated exclusively in mineral and energetic resources and finance, with no prior experience either in agriculture or the environmental sector other than through the lens of the mining industry. Therefore, I sincerely apologize to my readers and the academics quoted in this thesis for any misuse or overuse of scientific or ecological concepts borrowed from them.

> Neither AgroParisTech nor SCOR shall be held liable nor for the content of this thesis nor any consequences arising from the use or interpretation of the material presented therein.
# 1 Introduction

This thesis begins by outlining the background of SCOR's strategic initiative for nature. This move aligns with the growing momentum around nature-positive approaches in both economic and policy spheres.

We thus first interrogate the concepts behind nature and nature positivity and the in-
trinsinc paradox of unlocking capital for nature together with risks pertaining to this new
field. We attempt to shed light on what nature-positivity can mean for a global reinsurer.

Turning to agriculture, we explore the organic farming and soil conservation agriculture roots of regenerative agriculture and in particular tensions around its purported scope, definition and benefits. It leads us to further explore agroecology, a third lineage of regenerative agriculture.

Agroecology's explanatory power of regenerative agriculture cannot be fully leveraged without reviewing in details the land sparing versus land sharing debate in agricultural and conservation policy discussions. Indeed, one of the central theme of this thesis is the potential role of biodiversity in regenerative agriculture.

Framed within the land sparing versus land sharing debate, the now-defunct alternative
narrative of sustainable intensification offers valuable insights into the risks of definitional
ambiguity — particularly when the coalition promoting a new sustainable alternative
narrative is shaped in the context of power and equity asymmetries.

We further explore the relevance of defining practices-based standards for regenerative agriculture and ecosystems in general, despite the insurance business model-ingrained irresistible urge to do so. We then expose how practices-based versus outcomes-based standards are assessed in the literature and the implications for a global reinsurer whose interest is in nature's resilience. It thus shifts the focus to biodiversity, a long and well-documented natural form of insurance to manage radical uncertainty in ecosystems.

With this in mind, we explore a recent and very convincing article on agrobiodiversity-
grounded principles of a truly "regenerative" agriculture, which could support the def-
inition of principles-based standards. We also extend this framework to semi-natural
habitats — a landscape-level form of biodiversity — whose role in the functional in-
tegrity of ecosystems at various scales has been more quantitatively understood in recent
years.

The analysis of case studies in degraded pastures and "carbon farming"-driven regenera-
tive agriculture contexts then provide insights into the practical challenges and opportu-
nities arising from an agrobiodiversity-grounded framework for regenerative agriculture,
and how insurers and reinsurers can tackle the technical challenges of ecosystem man-
agement and regeneration uncertainty, by framing and derisking the trajectory of desired
outcomes (healthier ecological states) leading to the longer-term objective of complete
ecosystem regeneration.

We then rethink the truly holistic human dimension of regenerative agriculture through
the lens of health issues — which may impact the risks underwritten by SCOR in its life
and health business activities —, and in paralell a discussion on the role of technology
and carbon farming.

Finally, reviewing scarce material on regenerative agriculture economics, we stand ready
to offer insights into the contours of an investable and insurable regeneration project —
a poster child for building a low risk / high ecological return strategy for regenerative
agriculture at scale.

Clearly, one of the main limitations of our work lies in the limited time spent in the field.
Our approach is distinctly normative, aiming to develop broadly applicable frameworks
— albeit with a European bias, shaped by the references consulted during the thesis.
While time constraints may have led us to overlook important contextual nuances, we
hope it nonetheless sheds light on some of the key theoretical and practical challenges
surrounding ecosystem regeneration in the agricultural sector and beyond.
# 2 Background

## 2.1 SCOR's activities in context

SCOR provides insurance or reinsurance ("RI") solutions to help insurance companies and/or corporates to manage their risk exposure to natural and man-made disasters (property and casualty — "P&C") or mortality, morbidity and longevity (life and health — "L&H"). By the nature of its P&C activities, SCOR supports corporates that have an impact on the environment (or nature) and are impacted by the environment (or nature) within which their activities take place, ranging from typical industrial assets (factories, mining operations, infrastructure, etc) to natural resources sectors (agriculture, aquaculture, greenhouses, forestry, etc...). L&H activities and exposures are also nested in the "environment" and its quality. In 2015, SCOR P&C has started providing insurance coverage for environmental pollution (land, air, water..) and consequential damage to human health and biodiversity since 2015, to address the following gaps in standard Public Liability and Property Insurance Policy:

* Traditional insurance coverages offer only very limited aspects of pollution cover or totally exclude them

* Generally, traditional insurance policies only cover for sudden and accidental incidents and for "New" Conditions (ie. post insurance policy inception)

* Environmental Impairment Liability ("EIL") business line established to address liabilities arising from 1st & 3rd party claims and regulatory claims

* EIL policies can provide cover for gradual, new and even pre-existing conditions

## 2.2 SCOR's initiative for nature: a nature restoration financing catalyst

Acknowledging (i) the importance of healthy ecosystems to sustain biodiversity; prevent species extinction; provide clean water and air; maintain resilience against natural catastrophes/events; assist in combatting climate change (ii) the global challenges of declining Ecosystems: habitats of species, genetic diversity, ecosystem services, sustainable development, and human well-being (iii) restoration financing limited by inherently unpredictable and dynamic nature of ecosystems and resulting impact on investment, SCOR has launched the Nature Restoration and Conservation Initiative ("NatReco") which aims at bridging the gap between the need and the desire to finance ecological restoration projects, by de-risking financing opportunities<fnref n="1" />. The first product of this insurance solutions package being the "Restore" Product.

<footnote n="1">¹https://www.scor.com/fr/actualite/scor-launches-new-insurance-product-support-ecological-restoration-restore-product</footnote>
The NatReCo/Restore raison d'être is to offer an ecosystem recovery insurance solution to de-risk the various stages of the restoration project by insuring (versus pre-defined perils<fnref n="2" />) project costs associated with (re)creating the restoration conditions required for the ecosystem to return to its planned (or revised) recovery trajectory (not the ecological targeted final outcome itself).

In collaboration with the international non-profit organization, the Society for Ecological Restoration ("SER"), SCOR has developed a standards-based approach to its underwriting process to ensure any restoration project insured by SCOR's Restore Product will advance ecological restoration and commit to integrity and transparency in all its related actions. SCOR will also engage SER-certified practitioners globally to support the claims evaluation process. SCOR's own internal experts are supported by a diverse group of advisers with decades of technical experience in this field, including a Chair Emeritus, IUCN, Commission on Education and Communication; a Climate Smart Agriculture Expert & Entrepreneur; a former CEO of NatureServe, a spinoff of The Nature Conservancy; an Executive Director of SER and International Policy Lead at SER; a Chair Emeritus, IUCN, World Commission on Protected Areas; a former Senior Partner of an international law firm; and a Senior Conservation Scientist.

## 2.3 Widening the insurance spectrum to “nature-positive” projects of which Regenerative Agriculture

Further to the NatReCo initiative, SCOR is currently investigating the opportunity to widen its product offering to broader “nature-positive” projects, such as Urban Tree Planting, Environmentally impaired ecosystems rehabilitation/remediation, regenerative agriculture (“RA”), Great Green Walls within the below restoration continuum:

<footnote n="2">²Cold Wave; Earthquake; Fire; Flood; Hail Damage; Heat Wave; Cold Wave; Impact; Lack of Precipitation; Landslide; Lightning; Malicious Damage; Rockslide; Storm.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: “Nature-Positive” projects (Source: SER, amended)</figcaption></figure>

The reasoning for widening the spectrum of insurance solutions is that ecological restoration projects may in fact only be a subset of the “nature-positive” spectrum. Incentivizing capital flows into more “nature-positive” projects may well be a low-hanging fruit (and suitable starting point to develop more ambitious solutions). Within this frame, our work is focused specifically on RA<fnref n="3" />, “a term originated more than 30 years ago but recently has experienced a meteoric rise in public interest” Soloviev and Landua [2016].

<footnote n="3">³For a high-level contextualization of RA, our literature review suggests: “Degenerative systems eat down diverse resources; regenerative systems sustain diverse resources; impoverished systems have little to no resources; and coerced systems maintain a few highly valued resources”</footnote>
# 3 Framing the research question(s)

The purpose of this thesis is to outline the contours of an operational framework for nature-positive regenerative insurance solutions. It shall shed light on the key concepts, assumptions, limits, science and knowledge underlying the RA object. All these dimensions have to be understood, analyzed and contextualized to support a relevant insurance solutions framework meeting a range of (implicitly or explicitly) expressed (aligned or conflicting) needs from any of the stakeholders involved in RA: farmers, farming companies, agricultural cooperatives, agrifood business, corporates outside the agricultural sector, financiers/investors/banks/insurers, etc...

The underlying assumptions being twofold, first that it will unlock more financing towards RA at a global scale; second, that it will be “positive for nature”. We are indeed working under the assumption that RA can only be “nature-positive”, as if it was its main and sole attribute.

This raises the following questions: is RA absolutely and holistically positive? Are there attributes of RA “outside nature” and “nature restoration” that may not be positive? To what extent are the answers to these questions shaped by stakeholder perspectives? Can science credibly assert the nature-positive impacts of regenerative agriculture while remaining silent on its other dimensions? And can it make claims about nature positivity that are universally accepted, or are such claims inevitably context-dependent?

## 3.1 Nature-Positivity: aspirational and relativist

The notion of nature positivity raises at least two questions, how to define nature and how to define what is positive for nature.

### 3.1.1 The relativist notion of nature

The definition of nature is not just a scientific task but involves subjective, normative, and dynamic worldviews and values. Understanding this pluralism is crucial to avoid disregarding the diverse values connected to different definitions of nature [Keune et al., 2022].

More specifically, the nature/culture divide has been criticized as a cultural construct and the idea of a universal definition of nature challenged, emphasizing its plurality. Indeed, Descola and Pignocchi [2022] argue that "nature" as a separate domain from humans is a recent and specifically Western invention. This nature/culture dualism is not universal but a product of naturalist ontology (meaning way of relating to the world), which sees humans as distinct from and superior to non-human entities. Three other ontologies are identified by Descola: animism, totemism, and analogism, each carrying their own way of producing real world experience and knowledge.
Conscious of this naturalist/scientific bias, we will attempt to present the various stakes
around nature, following Keune et al. [2022]. First, it was associated in the U.S. with
the notion of wilderness both in a negative way — hostile and threatening nature to be
managed by the European settlers — and a positive way — romantic definition embraced
by the upper-middle-class white men valuing pristine and untouched nature, which cul-
minated with the creation of the Yellowstone National Park (1872), the first of its kind
[Cronon, 1995]. Then, the notion of biodiversity appeared in 1968 as a response to un-
sustainable human activities like overlogging and overfishing. The term gained traction
in the U.S. amid growing concerns about a looming “extinction crisis,” emphasizing the
immense diversity of life formed over 3.6 billion years, shifting focus from just endangered
species to the broader impact of human activity on ecosystems. Biodiversity (i.e., diver-
sity within species, between species, and of ecosystems) as defined by the Convention on
Biological Diversity ("CBD") in 1992 became a central concept in global conservation
policy, and a dominant framework in Western ecological thought influencing how nature
is governed and valued. Finally, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment popularized the
ecosystem services concept, in a functional framework whereby nature is considered as
a provider of services essential to human well-being, a point we will return to in sec-
tion 5.3. This led to the asserted ambition to integrate nature into policy by highlighting
its indirect and often overlooked contributions to human life and shifted attention to
socioeconomic drivers of environmental change, encouraging more systemic and interdis-
ciplinary approaches. This was both an opportunity — the notion of “natural capital”
made ecosystem services more accessible to policymakers and economists with the pro-
motion of monetary valuation of nature’s benefits — and a risk — commodifying nature
and reducing its value to market terms.

Our non-exhaustive review of the “nature-positive” literature shows that nature is not
given a single, fixed definition and common definition. It is incidentally used interchange-
ably with biodiversity, this term being left undefined [White et al., 2024] or largely under-
stood through the lens of integrated biodiversity and climate [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022].
In both cases, the focus is first and foremost on nature’s relationship to business impacts
and dependencies, reflecting the heterogeneous ownership of the nature-positive initia-
tive (“NPI”) — that is both conservation NGOs (WWF<fnref n="4" />, IUCN<fnref n="5" />, Birdlife, The Nature
Conservancy), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and Business for
Nature.

Cuckston [2022] suggests that nature-positivity goes beyond the nature-business relation-
ship as “humanity is an integral part of nature and, at the same time, a powerful force
for organizing nature,” which is probably why zu Ermgassen et al. [2022] calls for “an
integrated approach across relevant dimensions of nature (e.g. biodiversity, climate, wa-

<footnote n="4">⁴World Wide Fund for Nature.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵International Union for Conservation of Nature.</footnote>
ter, soil) to promote synergies and minimize tradeoffs, including social considerations to ensure social justice and positive social outcomes.”

It illustrates the various tensions or grey areas in the definitions of nature and raises critical questions: is nature only biodiversity? If so, what does biodiversity encompass? What are the boundaries of nature? Is it also climate, ecosystems, i.e. our environment (from an anthropocentric perspective?), or the biosphere? And where do humans fit in? How do they interact, collaborate or oppose in, with or within nature? As “there are no parts of Earth’s biosphere that are not in some way under the influence of human organizing” [Cuckston, 2022].

### 3.1.2 The notion of Nature-Positivity: a concept in need of clarity

The term "nature-positive" has gained traction among NGOs, governments, and businesses, but its definition remains vague and inconsistent [White et al., 2024, zu Ermgassen et al., 2022]. This lack of clarity risks enabling ineffective or superficial actions that fail to deliver real benefits for biodiversity or broader societal goals. While the ambition behind nature-positive is to go beyond “no net loss” and aim for a net gain in biodiversity, the concept is often used in an incantatory or aspirational way. For example, it is described as a transformative vision where societies and economies are restructured to ensure that nature is visibly and measurably improved [White et al., 2024].

At its core, the nature-positive agenda seeks not only to halt biodiversity loss but to reverse it, emphasizing restoration and enhancement rather than mere mitigation [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022]. This shift reflects a growing recognition that biodiversity loss poses systemic risks to businesses, economies, and society as a whole [White et al., 2024].

When we turn to biodiversity — a relatively narrow interpretation of nature, as previously discussed — its measurement remains a complex and evolving scientific challenge. “The question of how to construct an aggregate and encompassing measure of biodiversity has been extensively discussed and is still subject to on-going research” [Baumgärtner, 2007]. Early efforts focused primarily on species richness, or the number of species present. However, more recent approaches have expanded to include factors such as rarity, endemism, genetic diversity, and ecological functions. Emerging metrics now also assess biodiversity intactness (how much biodiversity remains compared to a baseline), species viability (the likelihood of species survival), and ecosystem functionality (including ecosystem services and resilience) [Keune et al., 2022].

Despite growing awareness, corporate engagement remains limited. While biodiversity commitments among Global Fortune 100 companies have increased since 2016, only a small proportion have set measurable, time-bound goals [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022].

How then could a more comprehensive definition of nature-positivity — one that calls for a complete transformation of economies and societies to visibly and measurably improve
nature —[White et al., 2024] not be complex and challenging? Key expectations arising from this broadened scope also include: (i) demonstrating positive outcomes across entire value chains, (ii) achieving organizational alignment, (iii) integrating biodiversity with climate and other environmental goals, and (iv) setting measurable, time-bound targets aligned with global frameworks like the Global Biodiversity Framework (“GBF”) [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022, White et al., 2024].

A major challenge lies in measuring nature-positive impacts in addition to biodiversity impacts across complex value chains, including upstream suppliers and downstream users. Key questions include: how should businesses define appropriate baselines? What metrics can capture uncertainty and quantify both positive and negative impacts? How can outcomes be aligned with societal goals and frameworks like Science-Based Targets Networks (“SBTN”), Task for Nature Financial Disclosures (“TNFD”), and EU sustainability directives? The emphasis on SMART targets (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) is paramount and growing [White et al., 2024], but few companies have yet adopted them meaningfully [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022].

Finally, the governance of nature-positive strategies raises further concerns around which mechanisms and instruments would be most effective, how to avoid greenwashing and disengagement, and how to ensure equitable outcomes, especially in the Global South. Actions that benefit biodiversity globally — such as protecting ecosystems near production sites — may limit local access to resources, harming human well-being and raising the question: “Positive for whom?” [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022]. This highlights the risk of neocolonial environmentalism, where Western priorities shape the futures of communities elsewhere, often without their consent or participation.

## 3.2 Unlocking more financing for a Nature-Positive Future?

The premise behind this academic research opportunity is that achieving nature-positive outcomes hinges on unlocking greater flows of capital towards nature. Put differently, the missing link in the nature restoration puzzle would be access to capital — capital that will be only unlocked if the right economic incentives are in place — ie. notwithstanding the extent to which other regulatory incentives may also be necessary.

At first glance, a global reinsurer — firmly grounded in economic rationality — would seem ideally positioned to grasp and navigate the technical and financial dimensions of this challenge. Concepts like investment sizing, valuation, internal rate of return, payback periods, and risk management are, after all, part of its core toolkit.

However, as White et al. [2024] points out, biodiversity loss, pollution, overexploitation, land use change acceleration, and climate change (all endangering species and ecosystems) are largely caused by economic activities. While this claim is certainly open to debate, the broader effort to economize nature — that is, to integrate natural resources and
ecosystems into economic systems and markets in order to incentivize their protection and restoration — has, to date, largely fallen short [Cuckston, 2022].

So, even if other factors are undoubtedly at play, there is a striking paradox at the heart of efforts to unlock more financing for nature: despite its apparent logic, it has not led to meaningful restoration or avoidance of nature loss. This raises a fundamental question — why has the economization of nature, at the microeconomic level, failed to curb nature loss? And more provocatively: could there really be a new, more effective form of economization — one better suited to preserving and restoring the natural world?

### 3.3 Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, restructuring the economic logic that governs the relation to the natural world from the viewpoint of a reinsurer?

Cuckston [2022] outlines why economization is ineffective in restoring nature. Nature is oversimplified and business-nature complexity overlooked. Traditional natural capital approaches reduce nature to stocks and flows (e.g., environmental assets and ecosystem services), ignoring the complexity of ecological systems and the diversity of biomes, leading to inadequate representations of nature in economic terms. This compounds with the fact that business-nature interdependencies themselves are complex, location-specific and involve multiple actors and ecosystems in supply chains, which existing models fail to capture. In this context, not only are businesses and financial markets largely blind to systemic risks from nature loss (and so are not acting to mitigate it—not least because these risks extend beyond their typical decision-making cycles Carney [2015]), but financial incentives of corporate managers (maximizing short-term investor returns) limit their ability to assess this nature systemic risk and invest in nature restoration. Finally, there is no standardized, market-accessible language for understanding and disclosing nature-related risks.

At a very high level, the TNFD is a global initiative that helps businesses and investors understand and manage the risks and opportunities related to nature and biodiversity. Earlier models focused on individual organizations managing their own impacts. TNFD shifts the focus to financial markets, enabling investors to understand systemic risks from nature loss across entire portfolios.

According to Cuckston [2022], TNFD both embraces the socio-ecological complexity of nature by integrating both ecological and economic dimensions into its framework and creates a market-accessible language for nature. Indeed, TNFD emphasizes that nature-related risks are location-specific and promotes the use of spatial data to map where businesses interact with ecological biomes, enabling more precise and actionable disclosures. UICN biomes and the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (“UN-SEEA”) classification are combined to develop a “periodic table” of nature to help bridge the gap
between scientific understanding and financial decision-making.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Overview of TNFD’s fundamental concepts for understanding nature</figcaption></figure>

As a result, it should align financial imperatives with nature restoration by reframing nature loss as a financial risk, making it relevant to investors in terms of shifting behaviour, making nature restoration part of fiduciary responsibility, and eventually unlocking nature-positive capital (at last). Moreover, TNFD envisions a virtuous coevolution: better disclosures lead to better investor decisions, which in turn pressure companies to improve their nature-related performance.

TNFD is by no means very ambitious. It may seem theoretical but has the merits of setting the general research frame in which to look for agency — i.e., the capacity to act — from the unique point of view of a reinsurer (and its clients and stakeholders). This knowledge would be “force for a Nature-Positive Future” only if SCOR recognizes its own and its clients and stakeholders’ interests in the systemic risk from nature loss. Indeed, “systemic risks are risks arising from the breakdown of the entire system, rather than the failure of individual parts. They are characterized by modest tipping points combining indirectly to produce large failures with cascading interactions of physical and transition risks” [Cuckston, 2022]. In other words and in business terms: how does a global reinsurer manage its broad exposure to nature loss?

While the principles of TNFD make perfect sense, some NGOs have complained that the UN Environment Program (“UNEP”) backing to TNFD has undermined and worked against environmental defenders, rights holders and civil society groups. They claim the Global Environment Fund (“GEF”) — when approving the funding of WWF for setting
up the TNFD — did not properly assess the risk that “TNFD may undermine existing corporate norms and expectations” and the “co-optation risks of a business-controlled decision-making process” [Rainforest Action Network et al., 2024]. Mundy and Tett [2023] also observe that “all of the TNFD’s 40 members are executives from big corporations and financial institutions, selected more for their employers’ economic clout, it seems, than for their expertise in biodiversity.”

## 3.4 Nature-Positivity: a commercially appealing business opportunity hiding an ocean of risks?

Unlocking capital for nature-positive outcomes is thus all but trivial. Uncertainties, challenges and risks stack up. The nature concept uncertainties, challenges and risks are “squared” with those of the nature-positive concept, which are further “cubed” with those of the “locking capital” concept. Yet, “transitioning the agricultural sector to a nature-positive future will require transformative change to current intensive agricultural practices and policies” [White et al., 2024].

Since a global reinsurer is in the business and trading of risk(s), it would be somewhat uncanny not to reflect on all the risk(s) of venturing into the nature-positive business before engaging on this route. For a publicly listed global reinsurer claiming to combine the art and science of risk to protect people, families and societies, the real danger may indeed lie in viewing nature positivity momentum in the economic world merely as a new business opportunity (“focus loss” risk):

* without seriously considering the irreversible risk (bond or “underwritten risk” risk) of,

* thanks to “backstop” insurance provided (moral hazard risk),

* incentivizing capital flows into or promoting "one-size-fits-all" technology-only driven projects (“technosolutionism bias” risk),

* possibly resulting in negative ecological outcomes (nature loss risk),

* opposite to the desirable and publicly stated objective (greenwashing risk),

* on the basis of dubious science (sciencewashing risk — see section 7.4),

* diverting its own and others’ human and financial resources away (opportunity cost risk) from

* addressing long-term business sustainability and adaptation challenges arising from systemic risk (existential risk),

ultimately amounting to false advertising (misleading investors risk).
With this in mind, we will humbly try to navigate the ins and outs of RA — acknowledging that our research may only be partially conclusive. We will explore ways by which a global reinsurer given its specific exposure to nature loss — not just any corporation —, could both internalize nature-positivity and avoid (obvious) mistakes in this complex field.

## 3.5 Principles guiding our research

Given the persistent uncertainty and the complexity of the challenges we face — many of which are unlikely to be settled soon — our objective is to lay the groundwork for a structured and critical approach to RA stakes for the (re)insurance sector.

Our methodology is guided by three core principles: humility, interdisciplinarity, and chronological perspective. By adopting a historical lens, we aim to better understand both the evolution of academic research and the practical realities encountered by professionals in the field. This approach seeks to clarify the key questions, conceptual frameworks, debates, controversies, and disciplinary intersections that must be considered to meaningfully anchor our work within a relevant nature-positive framework.

We advocate for a 360-degree view of risk, encompassing project-level risks, outward risks (to society, ecosystems, etc.), inward risks (to the insurer or reinsurer), systemic risks and broader societal implications. We also recognize that we may well operate under conditions of radical uncertainty, a notion we will revisit in section 9.3. Our aim is to minimize the risk of getting it wrong — not by claiming certainty, but by building a robust, reflective, and insightful framework to support relevant insurance solutions for nature in the context of RA and ecosystems regeneration.

## 3.6 Preliminary questions on Regenerative Agriculture

In this context, our initial approach will consist in reviewing the literature to tentatively answer the following research questions: what knowledge/state of the art/science-based evidence can be relied upon to define RA? What would be the domain of validity of claims, results or outcomes (cultivated ecosystem, practices, pedoclimatic conditions, etc...)? What are the consensus/controversies? What do we know, what do we don't? In parallel, we would aim to confront this body of science with the more or less scientifically-anchored field practice of RA (farmers, agribusiness, investment funds, development banks, etc..) in terms of who, where, why, how, what justification (science, economic, other?), motivation (production, carbon credits, etc...), under which regulation framework? Obviously, the "regenerative" adjective adjoined to agriculture begs the question of the object to regenerate. What are we talking about? Is there a consensus? Why regenerate? By what means? For who? What for?
# 4 Regenerative Agriculture within history of agriculture: roots, concerns, consensus, outstanding questions

## 4.1 The limits of Conventional Agriculture

Conventional agriculture (“CA”) has been instrumental in meeting global food demand, contributing to 70% to 90%<fnref n="6" /> of recent increases in food production by enhancing yields and operational efficiency through mechanization, synthetic inputs, and genetically modified organisms. These practices have enabled large-scale monocultures and simplified crop rotations, reducing labor costs and accelerating production [Fisher and Editor, n.d., Forever Farms, 2024, Husson et al., 2024].

However, this model has also led to significant environmental degradation. The widespread use of nitrate fertilizers — up 4.4 times in Europe between the 1960s and 1980s — has harmed biodiversity, weakened natural pest and disease regulation, and raised health concerns. The simplification of agricultural landscapes, especially in industrialized nations, has made agriculture a major driver of planetary boundary transgressions, particularly in biochemical cycles and biodiversity [Husson et al., 2024, Duru et al., 2022].

Moreover, CA has contributed to the degradation of common resources such as air, water, soil, and biodiversity, resulting in pollution, soil erosion, and greenhouse gas emissions. The intensification of farming has undermined soil health and its ability to sustain productivity and ecosystem services over time [Khangura et al., 2023, Schreefel et al., 2020]. Globally, the food system accounts for about 25% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, one-third of terrestrial acidification, and the majority of surface water eutrophication<fnref n="7" />.

## 4.2 Roots of the “regeneration” concept

The “regeneration concept” can be traced back to the beginning of the 1980s.

### 4.2.1 Organic Farming, the first alternative to Conventional Agriculture

One lineage comes from Organic Farming (“OF”), a movement concomitant to the rapid expansion of modern agriculture (chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fossil fuels) in the years following World War I [Duru et al., 2022, LaSalle et al., 2008].

J.I. Rodale, who can be considered as one of the fathers of organic agriculture, moved to rural Pennsylvania in the late 1930s, where he was able to realize his keen personal

<footnote n="6">⁶World Bank ("WB") estimate</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Degradation of water quality owing to enrichment by nutrients which results in excessive plant (principally algae) growth and decay.</footnote>
interest in farming. He was mostly interested in human health and organic food-growing concepts in the context of increasing artificial ingredients, preservatives, and additives for taste and appearance in food products.

To him, pure economic considerations further exacerbated the relevance of organic tech-
niques (being cover crops, composting and crop rotation) as “World War II’s sudden
shortage of nitrogen fertilizer — diverted to making munitions — [...] exposed the
natural nutrient poverty of the nation’s soil.” In 1947, he founded the Soil and Health
Foundation, a forerunner to the Rodale Institute, with the goal of developing and demon-
strating practical organic methods of rebuilding natural soil fertility and freeing the soil
of contaminants [LaSalle et al., 2008].

Years later, in 1981, The Rodale Institute and the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) set up the Farming Systems Trial® (FST) to study the transition to organic production and compare performance against the CA baseline over time. To the best of our knowledge, it was the first time in history that the regeneration concept was used in the context of agriculture: "We must go beyond sustainability, to renew and to regenerate our agricultural resources." [LaSalle et al., 2008].

Later, the Rodale Institute extended the claims made about the purported benefits of OF
in the context of climate change concerns: FST trials demonstrated significantly higher
yield for OF under severe drought and environmental stresses (yield resilience/volatility
in 2002), and the impact of “regenerative farming” techniques on carbon sequestration
(climate change mitigation in 2003/2004) [LaSalle et al., 2008].

The Rodale Institute then published a white paper in 2014 entitled Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change – A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming, in which the practice of reduced tillage or conservation tillage — the emblematic practice of Soil Conservation Agriculture as we shall see in the next section — was added to the OF original trinity: cover crops, compost, crop rotation.

Interestingly, nowadays, OF is not widely known in the “regenerative” Rodale’s acceptance of the term but rather as a regulated farming approach [Schreefel et al., 2020] and/or as a reference food label of growing economic importance with codified rules and practices, controls and certification processes, identified by consumers [Husson et al., 2024]. While emphasizing soil health, OF excludes all synthetic biocides but uses soil tillage [Duru et al., 2022], albeit moderately (at least in principle). It also has specifications regarding biodiversity and the development of legumes and associated crops and is characterized by promises on services to society that are partly verifiable, particularly regarding the presence of pesticide residues in urine [Husson et al., 2024].
4.2.2 Soil Conservation Agriculture to address loss of prime cropland, soil erosion and reduction in soil quality and organic matter

Another root can be traced to (soil) conservation agriculture (“SCA”), which emerged in the United States as a result of “the Dust Bowl Crisis of the 1930s first, where traditional tilling practices implemented at an industrial scale had caused widespread soil loss and land degradation across the US and Australia” [Bless et al., 2023]. Its primary aim was to protect the soil, mainly by maintaining ground cover [Husson et al., 2024].

In a piece titled *Saving Agriculture Land: Environmental Issue of the 1980s*, Sampson stated that “a regenerative agriculture could reduce the waste and pollution of water, provide better wildlife habitats, slow the advance of desertification and soil salinization, reduce the loss of prime farmlands and fragile topsoils, and, in general, make rural America a far more healthy, satisfying, and financially rewarding place to live.” To the best of our knowledge, this was the first occurrence of the term in scientific literature.

Some of the concerns expressed by the author are common to the organic farming movement (dependency on inorganic fertilizers, soil pollution and nutrient depletion), but one seems to really define this lineage (and be absent from the organic farming lineage, at least at inception): soil or topsoil erosion/loss/fragility and soil organic matter decline. Indeed, “soil damage rates have been accelerating just as fast, and for the same reasons, as debt levels have skyrocketed.” While “technological increases helped hide the effects of it, at least temporarily,” “soil organic matter level appears to be dropping,” and “on much of the remaining cropland, the topsoil is losing essential nutrients, structure, water-holding capacity, or organic matter in the process of crop production.”

According to the author, a “regenerative agriculture” should be based on “the development of soil and water conservation practices such as no-till, minimum till or conservation tillage farming that result in both soil and energy savings” together with “crop rotations, organic farming techniques and integrated pest management” also pushed by the organic farming movement. The author claims it can be done “without resorting to indiscriminate pesticide usage, which can negate all the cost savings involved and replace soil erosion and sediment pollution with chemical pollution—a trade nobody wants.” What we can assume was mere disagreements on the extent of this trade became outright competition when the Henry A. Wallace Agricultural Research Center conducted experiments in 2007 showing that organic farming can yield better soil quality and sequestration results compared to no-till alone [LaSalle et al., 2008].

Nowadays, SCA is based on three main principles (applied simultaneously [Duru et al., 2022]): reducing or even eliminating soil tillage [Duru et al., 2022] / no-tillage (only the disturbance of the seeding line is tolerated) [Husson et al., 2024], maintaining permanent soil cover [Duru et al., 2022] or maximum soil cover (made of crop residues or sown covers) [Husson et al., 2024], and diversifying and extending (associated [Husson et al., 2024])
crop rotations [Duru et al., 2022]. The promise being an agroecosystem in which bio-
logical regulations reduce the artificialization of the environment (inputs, tillage), which
implies profound changes in the management of cropping systems compared to conven-
tional agriculture. SCA emphasizes endogenous soil health/fertility, no-till practices, and
carbon sequestration for climate regulation, without excluding the use of pesticides [Duru
et al., 2022]. For the World Bank's Office of the Chief Economist, SCA is a term often
used interchangeably with RA since both share the overarching goal to maintain soil from
erosion and degradation [Dabalen et al., 2024].

4.3 Regenerative Agriculture: the soil and beyond

4.3.1 Consensus on regenerating the soil as an outcome, but through what means exactly?

Fast forwarding to the 2020s, we have reviewed the literature for articles on RA. While
our review was not exhaustive, we first focused on two articles describing results of meta-
analyses covering a large number of studies themselves. They both show that soil is
indeed the pillar of RA, a result which negates neither the OF nor the SCA lineage.

Indeed, Schreefel et al. [2020] conducted a meta-analysis over 28 studies (from 5 journal databases) to find convergence and divergence between objectives and activities used to support a definition of RA. Academics tend to reach a consensus over activities defining RA and four objectives specifically focused on soil issues (enhance and improve soil health, improve soil carbon, improve soil physical quality, and improve (soil) biodiversity)<fnref n="8" />. The authors contend that all regenerative agriculture activities ultimately revolve around soil-related processes. While this is certainly true for “minimize tillage” (which directly concerns the degree of soil disturbance), it may be an oversimplification when applied to “minimize external inputs.” Although this practice is indeed linked to soil fertility management, it more broadly reflects a reduced reliance on off-farm inputs and chemical pest control. Similarly, the use of perennials and crop rotation — though involving what is grown in the soil — relates as much to soil health as to wider risk management strategies, as we will explore in sections 9 and 10. The application of manure and compost, as well as mixed farming systems, also touch on soil inputs, but are fundamentally about the broader agrarian setup.

Newton et al. [2020], in a parallel literature review encompassing 229 articles and 25 prac-
titioner organizations, revealed two key findings. First, 40% of practitioners identified
reduced tillage (a hallmark of the SCA lineage) as a core RA practice — often alongside
livestock integration. Among academics, consensus was weaker but still soil-related: 26%
emphasized “use no or low external inputs,” and 12% cited “no synthetic fertilizers,” indi-
cating some alignment with the organic farming (OF) tradition, echoing several activities

<footnote n="8"><sup>8</sup>We will get back to relevant parameters and indicators these soil attributes in section 10.</footnote>
highlighted by Schreefel et al. [2020]. Second, both academics and practitioners over-
whelmingly agreed on “improving soil health (e.g., structure, organic matter, fertility)”
as a central outcome of RA.

These findings reinforce the idea that RA is fundamentally about the soil. This should
come as no surprise, given that soil is the foundational ecological component of agricul-
ture — long recognized and managed accordingly within Indigenous Technical Knowledge
[Barman et al., 2024]. What is particularly noteworthy is that both OF and SCA tradi-
tions stand in the background of the RA defining exercise, despite their historical tensions.
This raises a compelling question: can RA genuinely reconcile these two paradigms? Or
is RA itself becoming a contested concept, subject to appropriation — or even outright
co-optation?

4.3.2 Consensus on Regenerative Agriculture's potential to reduce negative externalities and generate positive ones at the ecosystem level, little agreement on exactly which outcomes

According to [Schreefel et al., 2020], academics tend to converge on the idea that RA has the potential to reduce negative environmental externalities — though the scale at which this occurs is not always clearly defined, it is presumably at the ecosystem level — and to enhance ecosystem services within that same scope. However, divergence emerges around broader objectives or outcomes such as “regenerating the (food) system,” “improving human health,” and “enhancing economic prosperity.” These goals arguably extend beyond agriculture per se, touching on the production system, the agrarian system and wider food systems and society. Or in ecological terms, RA would extend beyond the cultivated ecosystem.

The authors propose the following evidence-based provisional definition: “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 production.”

This definition highlights both the focal point of RA — soil conservation — (but as we
have shown above fails to capture the tension around SCA and OF) and its broader aspi-
rations, encompassing the three iconic pillars of sustainability: planet, people, and profit.
These sustainability dimensions are envisioned to operate across multiple scales, from the
farm level to regional and even systems-level transformations. The sustainability-scale
space opens up a wide range of possibilities for RA. It should thus not come as a surprise
if concurrent visions of RA coexist.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: The core themes of regenerative agriculture in Schreefel et al. [2020]</figcaption></figure>

The full spectrum of purported benefits of RA is illustrated through the table below extracted from [Newton et al., 2020].
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dimension of regenerative agriculture</th><th colspan="2">Journal articles</th><th colspan="2">Practitioner websites</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>%</th><th>N</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Processes</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reduce tillage (or no-, minimal-, conservation-)</td><td>14</td><td>11.6</td><td>9</td><td>40.9</td></tr><tr><td>Protect/cover the soil</td><td>6</td><td>5.0</td><td>4</td><td>18.2</td></tr><tr><td>Use cover crops</td><td>10</td><td>8.3</td><td>8</td><td>36.4</td></tr><tr><td>Use crop rotations</td><td>12</td><td>9.9</td><td>7</td><td>31.8</td></tr><tr><td>Use crop plant diversity (including intercropping)</td><td>11</td><td>9.1</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>Incorporate perennials and trees</td><td>7</td><td>5.8</td><td>6</td><td>27.3</td></tr><tr><td>Restore natural habitats</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>1</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Integrate livestock</td><td>23</td><td>19.0</td><td>9</td><td>40.9</td></tr><tr><td>Use ecological or natural principles or systems</td><td>9</td><td>7.4</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>Use no or low external inputs; maximize on-farm inputs</td><td>32</td><td>26.4</td><td>7</td><td>31.8</td></tr><tr><td>Use organic methods</td><td>10</td><td>8.3</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>Use natural pest control</td><td>7</td><td>5.8</td><td>2</td><td>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>Use no synthetic pesticides</td><td>15</td><td>12.4</td><td>4</td><td>18.2</td></tr><tr><td>Use organic fertilizers</td><td>8</td><td>6.6</td><td>2</td><td>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>Use compost, mulch, green manure, or crop residues</td><td>11</td><td>9.1</td><td>6</td><td>27.3</td></tr><tr><td>Use no synthetic fertilizers</td><td>15</td><td>12.4</td><td>5</td><td>22.7</td></tr><tr><td>Focus on localism and/or regionality</td><td>6</td><td>5.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Focus on small scale systems</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Rely on farm labor, including for local knowledge</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>4</td><td>3.3</td><td>1</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Outcomes</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To improve ecosystem health (including ecosystem services)</td><td>21</td><td>17.4</td><td>7</td><td>31.8</td></tr><tr><td>To increase biodiversity</td><td>26</td><td>21.5</td><td>10</td><td>45.5</td></tr><tr><td>To improve water health (e.g., hydrology, storage, reduce pollution)</td><td>18</td><td>14.9</td><td>10</td><td>45.5</td></tr><tr><td>To improve soil health (e.g., structure, soil organic matter, fertility)</td><td>49</td><td>40.5</td><td>19</td><td>86.4</td></tr><tr><td>To increase carbon sequestration</td><td>21</td><td>17.4</td><td>14</td><td>63.6</td></tr><tr><td>To reduce greenhouse gas emissions</td><td>5</td><td>4.1</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>To improve animal welfare</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>To maintain or increase yields</td><td>10</td><td>8.3</td><td>5</td><td>22.7</td></tr><tr><td>To maintain or improve farm productivity</td><td>18</td><td>14.9</td><td>5</td><td>22.7</td></tr><tr><td>To increase crop health and/or resilience</td><td>9</td><td>7.4</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>To improve food access and/or food security</td><td>10</td><td>8.3</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>To improve food nutritional quality and/or human health</td><td>13</td><td>10.7</td><td>7</td><td>31.8</td></tr><tr><td>To improve food safety</td><td>2</td><td>1.7</td><td>1</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>To improve the social and/or economic wellbeing of communities</td><td>21</td><td>17.4</td><td>9</td><td>40.9</td></tr><tr><td>To increase farm profitability</td><td>19</td><td>15.7</td><td>6</td><td>27.3</td></tr><tr><td>To create a circular system and/or reduce waste</td><td>14</td><td>11.6</td><td>1</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>5</td><td>4.1</td><td>3</td><td>13.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 4: Summary of processes and outcomes included in definitions/descriptions of RA in Newton et al. [2020]

What stands out once again is the contrast between academic and practitioner perspectives. While practitioners broadly agree on the positive impact of RA on soil health — suggesting that empirical evidence may be largely confined to this ecological domain — academics appear more cautious. Interestingly, ecosystem-level outcomes are less frequently cited by academics here than in [Schreefel et al., 2020]. Yet, practitioners tend to attribute to RA a wide array of multiscale, multidimensional, and holistic benefits that extend well beyond the ecosystem level, encompassing broader agrarian and soci-
etal reach. These two papers, through different approaches, shed light on a fundamental feature of RA, its apparent aspiration to scale up from the physical and ecological base compartment of agricultural production (since the dawn of age) — the soil — to a broader object, beyond farm level potentially as far reaching as the whole food-system, having economic, social and ecological benefits.

This divergence between academics and practitioners in [Newton et al., 2020] raises im-
portant questions. Does the academic caution reflect a genuine lack of robust evidence
for outcomes beyond soil health? Are some of the broader claims made by practitioners
aspirational — perhaps even speculative? Who exactly are these practitioners, and what
are their stakes? Are these outcomes grounded in measurable impacts tied to specific
practices, or are they more akin to promises — narratives of potential — that may or
may not materialize? And if they are promises, to whom are they being made? As the
saying goes, promises only bind those who believe in them.

In any case, one conclusion seems clear: given RA's potentially holistic ambitions, it
is hardly surprising that "a range of claims have been made by different parties about
the potential for RA to enhance the sustainability of food production, including for the
possibility that RA could form part of a climate change mitigation strategy" [Newton
et al., 2020], through the improvement of soil carbon. On the contrary, it would be
surprising to find a single, settled definition of RA in the literature — lending weight to
Duru et al. [2022]'s observation that "various interpretations of RA coexist, depending
on who is referring to it and the underlying school of thought." While the implications
of this ambiguity warrant further exploration, they do lend credence to concerns about
appropriation or even co-optation — notwithstanding the presence or absence of evidence
for RA practices, a point to which we shall return in section 7.4.
# 5 Agroecology (and biodiversity), an interpretive key to Regenerative Agriculture's scale up dimension

The absence of convergence of RA characteristics beyond the ecosystem and the risk of RA being the subject of multiple influences or appropriation attempts by various alternative sustainable agriculture narratives begs the following question: why should there be objectives beyond the ecosystem in the first place? What drives this aim for a broadening of scope?

Of all alternative sustainable agriculture narratives (including but not limited to natural farming, permaculture, biodynamic farming, carbon farming, climate-smart agriculture, low external input agriculture, circular agriculture, biological farming, ecological intensification, precision farming), agroecology ("AE") is the main "umbrella" narrative for "natural-processes driven" agriculture — by contrast to "technology-driven" agriculture [Duru et al., 2022, Husson et al., 2024].

Although it is not mentioned once in the body of [Schreefel et al., 2020] and [Newton et al., 2020], Duru et al. [2022] are adamant that "RA is a form of agriculture that refers to AE," while Khangura et al. [2023] note "benefits of RA practices can vary among different agroecosystems and may not necessarily be applicable across multiple agroecological regions." On the practitioners' side, Nestlé [2024] describes its model for RA to be guided by "agroecological principles and practices." AE thus deserves some attention.

## 5.1 Agroecology as a practice, science and social movement

In its technical dimension, AE in cropland mostly involves (in principle) substituting ecological (natural) processes for chemical inputs and fossil fuels through increased soil cover and reduced tillage to promote biological activity, practices borrowed or shared with SCA and OF. As most soil properties and functions that provide ecosystem services are determined by soil organic matter content, increasing it is a key objective of agroecology. In parallel, AE in livestock farming is based on two main principles. First, it aims to reduce the use of industrial feed by optimizing the available food resources on the farm through the valorization of natural grassland areas (permanent pastures, rangelands, summer pastures...). Second, it promotes animal health through adapted herd management. The implementation of these two principles requires strong integration between crop and livestock farming [Duru et al., 2022].

Its consolidation into a proper scientific discipline has both European/Latin American roots [Bless et al., 2023] and US academia roots [Duru et al., 2022]. In Europe, AE originated with advances in soil science in the 1930s and consolidated in the 1960s as "the understanding of a need to consider maximizing agricultural/farm outcomes within the socio-ecological context as an agrosystem" [Bless et al., 2023]. As a science, the scope of
AE has over the years expanded from focusing on small-scale or farm-scale agrosystem considerations to a holistic study of the ecology of more sustainable and integrated food or agri-food systems, encompassing ecological, economic and social dimensions, through the integration of research, education, and action [Bless et al., 2023].

Last but not least, AE is characterized by its social dimension whose roots are to be found in the peasant resistance movement, which challenged the Green Revolution based on concerns regarding the impacts of industrial agriculture on the environment and lives of farmers [Bless et al., 2023], but there were attempts to adjoin a social dimension to agroecology in Europe as well [Duru et al., 2022]. It seems the transition from pre-modern to modern agriculture failed to adequately manage the shift in production inputs — from labor-intensive to capital-intensive systems. In this context, AE is indeed best described as a science, practice, and social movement [Bless et al., 2023].

## 5.2 Agroecology: a paradigm apart

In our view, the three key differences between AE and other sustainable agriculture routes relevant to our analysis are the following.

First, unlike OF and SCA (and sustainable intensification as we shall see further below), AE does not seem to be linked, either today or in the past, to universally well-defined agricultural practices such as no-till or reduce tillage for instance (although “agroecological practices” are mentioned in literature). Rather, AE is typically defined in terms of how agrarian systems should be encapsulated within the ecosystems but not necessarily situated in time<fnref n="9" />. This holistic dimension is asserted through both agronomic crop/livestock integration (ancestral practice) and social organization (place of man in agrarian systems). Of course, the application of the term varies significantly depending on historical and cultural contexts in different countries, a point we will return on later in this section.

Second, its normative anchoring is acknowledged “as it places at its center the power dynamics and diverse knowledges and cultures that contribute to global agri-food systems, geared towards a transformative agenda” unlike OF and SCA [Bless et al., 2023], although at least economical sustainability was a concern of these two alternatives to CA. As a social movement, AE aims to transform the industrial food system and build food systems that strengthen the economic viability of rural areas based on short food supply chains, and fair and safe food production. It supports diverse smallholder food production, rural communities, food sovereignty, local knowledge, social justice, local identity and culture, and indigenous rights.

Last but not least, according to Duru et al. [2022], AE emphasizes the pivotal role of bio-

<footnote n="9">⁹When pushing AE production legislation in 2016, the Bolivian government refrained from standardizing AE, which remained principles-based [Bless et al., 2023].</footnote>
diversity, which supports ecosystem services and thus agricultural production, whether
it is planned crop diversity or the semi-natural habitats that determine associated bio-
diversity. The underlying idea being that the biodiversity/cultivated ecosystem (and
presumably beyond) is a two-way relationship, as “all or part of synthetic inputs that
can be replaced by services provided by biodiversity,” and agroecology can in return be
“expected to provide services, the restoration of commons, including biodiversity” [Hus-
son et al., 2024]. “Agroecology, as an ecological science, focuses on the contribution of
biodiversity to enhancing the generation of ecosystem services to and from agriculture
with the aim of regenerating these services” [DeClerck et al., 2023]. For these authors, the
integration of biodiversity into agroecological systems fosters resilience and productivity,
a point we will return to in section 9.

It is worth pausing to reflect on three key distinctions we observe between AE and alter-
native sustainability narratives. From one perspective, AE proves to be fully adaptable
to the “nature-positive” criteria outlined earlier in this thesis — despite the inherent
ambiguities and limitations of that concept. Indeed, AE takes a holistic approach: it
embraces the full value chain, emphasizes inclusivity, and anchors its understanding of
nature in biodiversity as its foundational element. However, because AE is grounded in
principles or philosophy rather than standardized practices, it does not easily translate
into clear-cut, measurable practices — raising potential issues around its assessability, let
alone the formulation of SMART targets as frequently emphasized in the nature-positive
literature. In turn, economizing AE might prove to be challenging.

If (i) both AE and nature-positivity claim that biodiversity is central within their nar-
ratives, and (ii) RA is nature-positive (our working assumption), why does biodiversity
seem like an afterthought in both Schreefel et al. [2020] and Newton et al. [2020]? A
(historical) perspective on biodiversity in agriculture is both necessary and timely.

5.3 Biodiversity, agriculture and the land sparing versus land sharing discussion

Nature was historically seen as a constraint — something that dominated humans until
they developed the tools (agriculture, science, technology) to dominate it in return and
overcome natural limitations (e.g., soil fertility, pests, climate) through expansion, mech-
anization, and chemical inputs, as illustrated by CA [Clark et al., 1990]. The Enlighten-
ment and industrial-era beliefs were that freedom and progress were achieved through
mastery over natural processes, including in agriculture. The mechanistic science that
had arisen in the seventeenth century indeed underpinned the rationalization and control
of nature [Clark et al., 1990, Faucheux and Noël, 1995], especially in agriculture, where
land, plants, and animals were treated as isolated, manipulable units “detached from the
whole vast interconnection of things” [Clark et al., 1990].
Over time, this drive for control extended and succeeded so far that agriculture has be-
come responsible for 80% of global deforestation and is now the leading cause of terrestrial
biodiversity loss [Bless et al., 2023]. The question of biodiversity conservation has taken
center stage, becoming a key point of contention in the twenty-first-century debate be-
tween land sparing ("LSP", or intensive farming) and land sharing ("LSH", or extensive
farming).

In the LSP option, agriculture is concentrated (and more productive) in a smaller area of
land, thereby 'sparing' natural areas. In contrast, LSH promotes integrating biodiversity
conservation within agricultural landscapes at the expense of yield<fnref n="10" />. More land —
including human and non-human, biodiversity and agriculture — is required to achieve
the same level of production.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Simplified view of land use strategies for biodiversity conservation</figcaption></figure>

This section is largely supported by an analysis of presentations made by Couvet [2023], Stoop [2023], Lévêque [2023], Vidal [2023] and discussed in the context of the debate on LSP and LSH who took place at the Académie d'Agriculture in January 2023.

5.3.1 Early days: a simplistic view of biodiversity and utility ...

In 2005, a group of researchers including developed a rather simple mathematical model to identify the optimal choice for biodiversity, depending on the convexity/concavity of the relationship between yield and wild biodiversity in agricultural land. While calling for more data to be collected, the conclusion were that intensification of agriculture — LSP — was more desirable. This was further empirically shown by with bird biodiversity measurements campaigns in India.

One of the main issues with Green’s model was that biodiversity was viewed in binary
terms — either wild (including pest) or domesticated, the latter now rebranded as agro-
biodiversity. Since only domesticated biodiversity was thought to enhance agricultural

<footnote n="10">¹⁰This point is still debated (extent, domain of validity, etc), but have not further explored this issue on a standalone basis.</footnote>
performance — while pests were seen as detrimental — agriculture and 'wild' biodiversity were considered to function better when kept separate, especially given the assumption that intensifying cultivated plots had no significant impact on the biodiversity of surrounding uncultivated areas. As a result, the Green model would only account for the pure productive and economic performance of agriculture and quite naturally advocate for intensification (not yet what would become sustainable intensification).

### 5.3.2 ... not accounting for “man-made” biodiversity, planetary boundaries and ecosystem services, at the origin of holism

The critics of Green's model and conclusions were initially centered on its economical assumptions (including the equilibrium of (agricultural) markets). It was first demonstrated that while LSH may benefit biodiversity more than LSP (unless strong convexity between biodiversity and yield), consumer surplus analysis indicated that LSH could lead to higher prices and negatively impact consumers if their surplus is evaluated based on the quantity consumed, which may not be favorable for food security. On the other hand, lower LSP production costs and higher agricultural profits under intensive farming conditions — by virtue of the so-called rebound effect (Jevon's paradox) — could create incentives for encroachment on protected areas.

Beyond this rather technical debate grounded in economic science, a more fundamental question was put forward and center: the place of humans in nature. Some authors have highlighted that wild nature does not exist (anymore) and that nature evolves as much by itself (evolutionary intrinsic dimension) as through humanity's co-construction. “Nature/biodiversity engineering” through agricultural practices is documented — for instance, the counterintuitive positive impact of slash-and-burn agriculture on biodiversity in Madagascar [Carrière, 2024]<fnref n="11" />, as well as the impact of hunting intensity, which can work both ways [Office National des Forêts, 2025]. Co-construction was probably at work since the beginning of human settlements, perhaps even since the mastering of fire [Scott, 2017].

Loconto et al. [2020] analyzed the LSP versus LSH controversy using textual big data techniques applied to scientific corpora, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agrifood industry reporting, and NGO sustainability standards. They showed that representations of the LSP/LSH faultline conformed to two opposite worldviews — compositionalism for LSP and functionalism for LSH. If the interaction between humans and nature is indeed by design of an LSH/agroecology type — as Couvet [2023] suggests — then solutions to halt biodiversity loss (and potentially reverse it through nature restoration) should be better framed within the LSH paradigm. Arguably, LSP advocates, who push intensification to spare purported pristine areas from land use conversion to agriculture, remain silent on “repairing” existing degradation.

<footnote n="11">¹¹See more broadly defined pyrodiversity, the interaction between fire regimes and biodiversity.</footnote>
In parallel, the rise of the literature on planetary boundaries and food diets within those boundaries — where biodiversity is not as well quantified relative to others<fnref n="12" />, yet perceived as more critically threatened — has highlighted the parameters of healthy ecosystems and helped clarify the complex relationship between agriculture and ecosystem services, including the extent of negative externalities related to agriculture.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Planetary boundaries in 2023 (6 now crossed, only 3 in the early days of the LSS debate) [Stockholm Resilience Centre, n.d.]</figcaption></figure>

Indeed, healthy ecosystems can provide valuable supporting <fnref n="13" /> and regulating<fnref n="14" /> services to agricultural systems and cultural services to societies more broadly — next to “provisioning” ones as defined by the FAO in its Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. These services cannot be ignored when assessing optimal land use despite to not being accountable (yet?) in monetary terms. This literature has weakened initial conclusions from the Green's model, first because the model could account neither for ecosystem services nor the social and economic variables, second because of too fragile assumptions on the functioning of markets or oversimplified human well-being optimization only through yield maximization.

But, more importantly, we are inclined to think these “new” considerations (namely ecosystem services and agroecology/LSH as a tool for nature restoration) on the back of a functionalist world view have put forward the importance of holistic approaches

<footnote n="12">¹²GHG emissions, cropland use, freshwater use, nitrogen application, phosphorous application.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Soil formation, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, biodiversity.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Climate through carbon sequestration, soil fertility, water flow regimes and quality, inundation mitigation, pest and waste management, air quality, pollination.</footnote>
when considering optimal land use. This is no longer about maximizing agricultural pro-
duction and/or biodiversity (as in fauna one type of biodiversity conforming to one world
view of man in nature). There are other moving parts to be taken into consideration.

**5.3.3 Uncertainties from the land sparing versus land sharing discussion**

The LSS debate is a complex one — if not an unsettled one — to say the least.

First, in both cases, the normative anchor is questionable. The LSH normative anchor is a fantasized perfect and virtuous integration of humans in nature (did it ever exist? Was it ever stable?), negating the agrarian (and broader societal) evolutionary trajectory, at least in developed or developing countries. On the other hand, the LSP normative anchor assumes that a fixed and static biodiversity (did it ever exist?) can be preserved from human direct activities and externalities (has it ever been possible?) [Lévêque, 2023].

Second, it is worth noting that LSP and LSH definitions as spatial arrangements are not always clear-cut [Stoop, 2023] and may be subject to interpretations, to the extent that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive — depending on the context. Propaganda is at work for advocates of both sides, and very intense farming within “land shared” agrosystems does exist, raising the question of parcel size threshold (in relation to farming fragmentation) above which farming will be considered as land sparing and below which as land sharing. In other words, the Beauce region in France is a land sparing model where no land has been spared (and a blueprint for caricatures of land sparing), which does not mean that local farming methods cannot be integrated into a land sharing scheme.

Third, in our view, the LSS discussion demonstrates the challenge in reaching clear-cut conclusions on optimal land use, and the risk of taking action on the basis of truncated or partial information, and/or without contextualization. Advocates of LSH seem to overlook the yield decrease risk and/or displacement effect risk related to scaling up LSH in Europe without scaling down agricultural production (and indirectly meat consumption) in Europe, or triggering further deforestation in the Global South [Stoop, 2023, Vidal, 2023]. Meanwhile, rather on the LSP side, Stoop [2023] promotes intensification, for instance by comparing organic farming (OF) — with its 40 to 50% lower yield but only 30% higher biodiversity — rather than LSH or agroecology, to conventional agriculture (CA), to claim that LSP is a better land management option for biodiversity. Similarly, evidence that intensification impacts are not significant on biodiversity beyond the immediate vicinity of cultivated ecosystems can be presented — while omitting to mention intensification’s impact on diffuse water pollution extending beyond those areas.

Finally, it can be observed that agricultural land use (in hectares) in France negates the
Jevons' rebound effect risk put forward by Green's critics [Lévêque, 2023].
### 5.3.4 A path towards consensus challenged by the unsettled notion of biodiversity

Despite the above caveats, there is nonetheless a consensus on the importance of agroecological infrastructures. The European BioBio program has suggested that the presence and diversity of uncultivated habitats at the farm level may be more decisive for biodiversity than the specific production method used. In other words, preserving natural or semi-natural areas within agricultural landscapes is essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems, which can be a consensus line between LSH and LSP given the aforementioned nuances over the definition of LSP. Indeed, Stoop [2023] acknowledges that Green's model may be more relevant if unfarmed zones are limited to surrounding agroecological infrastructures rather than "natural areas."

Finally, the conclusion of this section is not that biodiversity is not essential in the debate. If biodiversity cannot be the justice of peace on optimal land use, this conclusion is only valid under a narrow definition of biodiversity, that of conservation NGOs. Biodiversity in its diversity (uncultivated ecosystems, agrobiodiversity, soil biodiversity, etc.) is fundamental to ecosystem services (a point we will return to in section 9).

Besides the daunting question of how to measure all biodiversities equally [Loconto et al., 2020] — an issue raised in Green’s model — conclusions related to it seldom pertain to all dimensions of biodiversity. Appreciating and evaluating biodiversity implies anthropogenic and judgmental bias in assessing and choosing what is considered “good” biodiversity (e.g., pandas in China, lemurs in Madagascar, ungulates for hunters) versus “bad” biodiversity (e.g., pests, ungulates for foresters), and what (if any) biodiversity should be favored over another<fnref n="15" />.

### 5.3.5 The debated scenarii projected in 2050 and the distributive dimensions

A major study by Bateman et al. [2013], published in *Science* and conducted by a team of 25 economists and ecologists, modeled two future scenarios for the UK by 2060: the LSP Scenario, prioritizing agricultural productivity by relaxing environmental regulations to maximize yields, and the "Agroecological" Scenario (or LSH scenario), emphasizing sustainable farming practices, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Despite the complexity of valuing externalities — both positive (e.g., carbon sequestration, flood mitigation) and negative (e.g., pollution, biodiversity loss) — the study found that the agroecological scenario delivers significantly greater collective economic benefits in the medium term. These include improved public health, reduced disaster costs, and enhanced ecosystem

<footnote n="15">¹⁵For species that are specialists of forest or wetland habitats (Willow Warbler or Eurasian Reed Warbler), or for species that specialize in agricultural landscapes originating from open wooded habitats (Whitethroat), land sparing is clearly the preferable approach. Land sharing, on the other hand, may only benefit species that are specialists of agricultural environments (Whitethroat), generalist species (Blackcap), or those originating from open steppe-like grasslands (Corn Bunting), which would likely benefit more from a land-sharing strategy.</footnote>
resilience.

Dorin [2022] conducted a similar foresight study (AgroEco2050) in collaboration with the government of Andhra Pradesh (in India), the FAO, and a group of about 30 experts. “With our agroecological scenario fully scaled through the Pradesh Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF), 35 million women and men would be fully employed, the number of farmers would reach over 12 million as in 2011, cropland under Natural Farming would increase to 8.3 million hectares, the overall rate of economic growth would average 6.5% per annum,” and the farm-non-farm income gap would be reduced.

However, a tension remains: while society as a whole would benefit more from the agroecological sector, the agri-food sector finds the LSP model more economically attractive — at least for the time being — and may have no interest in considering any alternative scenario. This reflects not only a structural challenge in aligning private incentives with public goods [Couvet, 2023], but more profoundly the distributive dimensions described by Mermet [2011] in the context of environmental policy and land use. In this framework, environmental issues are not just ecological or technical problems — they are deeply political and "distributive" in nature. Environmental policies often result in uneven distributions of benefits (like clean air, biodiversity, or access to green spaces) for "winners", and burdens (such as pollution, land degradation, or displacement) for "losers". Such dynamics are clearly at play in the shift from CA to an LSH/agroecology approach.

A similar distributive lens may also be relevant when discussing the notion of “nature-positive,” which we briefly touched on with the “nature-positive for whom?” question. zu Ermgassen et al. [2022] argue that “the firm that came closest to committing to biodiversity actions consistent with nature-positive was Microsoft, which set SMART targets, discussed the biodiversity co-benefits of their climate strategy, and committed to mitigating the negative impact of their business on biodiversity,” and that “there is a huge variation in firms’ historical and current responsibility for nature loss, and equitably allocating responsibility is essential to delivering nature-positive outcomes in the aggregate.” In fact, Microsoft’s pledge to protect more land than it has used and still uses — through mechanisms such as land acquisition, conservation easements, or indigenous-led conservation — raises questions about who ultimately benefits from these actions, and who bears the costs. In this sense, any biodiversity conservation initiative (especially when colored by strict environmental orthodoxy) may carry distributive consequences that deserve scrutiny — particularly in terms of land access, governance, and local agency [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022].

While Microsoft emphasizes its relatively small direct footprint (approximately 11,000 acres globally), as a technology company its Scope 2 emissions are more relevant. Since Microsoft pledged to become “carbon negative” in 2020, those emissions have risen by 55%
— despite the Big Tech carbon practices used to minimize the actual numbers [Mundy, 2025] — and the rising demand for AI data centers shows no sign of abating.

This distributive dimension further compounds with Big Tech's ability to shape the regulatory landscape to serve their own interests: “Companies including Amazon, Meta and Google have funded and lobbied the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the carbon accounting oversight body, and financed research that helps back up their positions, according to documents seen by the Financial Times” [Tauschinski et al., 2024].
# 6 Sustainable intensification, the rise and fall of a sustainable agriculture narrative

Our thesis on RA would fall short of fully engaging with the land sparing versus land sharing debate if it did not address the concept of sustainable intensification.

## 6.1 Sustainable intensification: spreading conventional agriculture in African countries?

Sustainable (agriculture) Intensification (SAI) has emerged as a strategic compromise between the need to increase agricultural productivity—beyond the achievements of the Green Revolution, defined as a global transition in the Global South to input-intensive agriculture without widespread capital-intensive mechanization [Mazoyer and Roudart, 2002] — and the growing imperative for sustainability, as initially articulated in the Brundtland Report. It responds to dual pressures: addressing food security, particularly in the Global South, while mitigating the environmental impacts of conventional agriculture [Bless et al., 2023].

Khangura et al. [2023] refer to the “do no harm” principles of sustainable agriculture as defined by the FAO in 2014, while Duru et al. [2022] stress that SAI seeks to improve input efficiency to reduce environmental impacts.

SAI is a productivist narrative that has absorbed the sustainability *zeitgeist*. It is mainly used in the context of countries with low agricultural productivity (notably due to the smallholder agrarian structure). It offers an alternative to a fully mechanized and capital-intensive conventional agriculture.

## 6.2 The technical determinism behind sustainable intensification

As outlined by Duru et al. [2022] and Husson et al. [2024], two main sustainable agriculture pathways can be distinguished: (i) agroecology (AE), which is "nature-based", rooted in biodiversity, ecological processes, and local/traditional knowledge — as previously discussed — and linked to the LSH model; (ii) technology-based Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI), which relies on innovations such as genetics, digital tools, and robotics to optimize the use of synthetic inputs, and is intrinsically more congruent with the LSP model.

SAI still largely depends on short crop rotations and monocultures, often overlooking the biotic and abiotic specificities of local production systems [Duru et al., 2022]. It does not challenge the structural characteristics of dominant Western agricultural models and still relies on a strict separation between crop and livestock farming. Rather, it adapts and extends these models to new contexts [Duru et al., 2022]. This is so because full-fledged
mechanization is much easier to deploy in simplified landscapes, or put differently, stan-
dardized wide (and long) monoculture fields and large-scale capital-intensive equipment
would naturally “economize” better [Couvet, 2023].

6.3 The land sparing versus land sharing debate: strategic al-
liances at play

Not only does SAI not challenge the structural characteristics of dominant Western agri-
cultural models, but, owing to its productivist and technological dimensions, it is highly
compatible (or fungible) with existing sociotechnical regimes<fnref n="16" /> and tends to foster the
stability of the dominant system [Duru et al., 2022].

Once it was officially endorsed by the World Bank and FAO, SAI quickly gained traction through a cascade of policy documents, scientific reports, and joint initiatives between governments [Bless et al., 2023], presumably supported by the funding power of these institutions. This natural convergence of interests between the FAO, the World Bank, and agrifood players gathered further momentum with the intervention of civil society and NGOs.

Indeed, the notion of SAI “doing more with less” as a means of sparing land from conversion to agriculture was attractive to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [Bless et al., 2023] — presumably operating under an orthodox approach to biodiversity protection — to the extent that they set up a joint £70 million fund with the UK government for the Strategic Collaboration Portfolio for the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture. “Not only could food insecurity be addressed, but land-sparing would help mitigate biodiversity loss, reduce possible future carbon emissions, and potentially allow for the conversion of agricultural land back to its pre-cultivation state.”

Loconto et al. [2020] go further in showing that the LSS scientific debate was the terrain for a very broad strategic alliance — i.e., beyond the natural convergence of interests — between conservation NGOs<fnref n="17" /> pushing a “wild nature” environmentally orthodox agenda, the agroindustry seeking legitimation of the prevailing sociotechnical regime (in a distributive fashion), and the academic community advocating for the LSP side of the debate.

<footnote n="16">¹⁶“A set of aligned rules carried by a range of actors (firms, users, governments, scientists, etc.) that together form a community for how to produce, use, and regulate specific products and processes” as used by Dorin [2020]</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which the lead author of (Green et al, 2005) was affiliated to.</footnote>
## 6.4 The decline of sustainable intensification and the rise of Regenerative Agriculture

Eventually, SAI increasingly faced criticism for mirroring the productivist logic of industrial agriculture. Besides the Jevons paradox already mentioned, critics highlighted several key concerns: the technological treadmill concept, whereby farmers became dependent on continuous technological upgrades, often to their detriment; the emphasis on technology, which opened the door for greater agri-food corporate control, echoing the dynamics of conventional agriculture; issues of food justice and sovereignty, exacerbating existing power imbalances; and continued land degradation and poor animal welfare in intensive systems, which all remained unresolved [Bless et al., 2023].

By the late 2010s, SAI began to lose its appeal and came to be seen as “business as usual,” lacking transformative potential. This fall out of grace is visible in both policy and corporate discourse: the FAO’s 2022–31 Strategic Framework dropped the term “intensification” (except for aquaculture), and major corporate agri-food corporations — its loudest supporters — ceased using the SAI narrative altogether. Incidentally, this decline coincided with the rise of the latest sustainable agriculture narrative — Regenerative Agriculture (RA) — which has since gained overwhelming prominence (to the extent that it has almost entirely replaced SAI) as a more holistic and potentially transformative alternative, in both policy circles and agrifood corporations [Bless et al., 2023].

The rise of RA also coincides with the FAO’s growing interest in AE.

# 7 Regenerative Agriculture, the new unsustainable sustainable agriculture hype?

## 7.1 The Regenerative Agriculture discourse coalition, a fragile convergence...

By tracing RA's roots in the history of alternative sustainable agriculture and examining the range of practices and definitions it encompasses, we have evidenced an empirical broad consensus around its holistic nature. While we took both the genealogical and meta-analysis angles, Gordon et al. [2023] examine the discourses<fnref n="18" /> of a set of actors to decipher how language, metaphors, and meanings shape RA and its potential for transformation. RA has indeed attracted attention from producers, retailers, researchers, and consumers, as well as politicians and the mainstream media [Newton et al., 2020], and farmers, corporations, and NGOs<fnref n="19" /> [Gordon et al., 2023].

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Shared ways of speaking and thinking that shape how people understand and act in the world.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Of which WWF and The Nature Conservancy [Bless et al., 2023].</footnote>
Their analysis identified nine distinct discourses bringing together various actors who share a common “RA” storyline or narrative<fnref n="20" /> of “working with nature to restore, revive, and renew environments”: Restoration for Profit; Big Picture Holism; Regenerative Organic; Regrarian Permaculture; Regenerative Cultures; Deep Holism; First Nations; Agroecology and Food Sovereignty; and Subtle Energies. These indeed form a discourse coalition — i.e., a group of diverse actors united by shared storylines, despite coming from different backgrounds or ideologies.

In the absence of a clear definition and given the loose extent of RA beyond the cultivated ecosystem, as we have demonstrated, it can be argued that these nine discourses influencing RA have interacted and co-created a storyline that has interpretive flexibility. In other words, “there is enough common ground in [the nature of]<fnref n="21" /> regenerative agriculture to feel included in the community but also enough space for interpreting it in your own way” [Gordon et al., 2023].

## 7.2 ... overshadowing unbridgeable ontological divergences?

According to Gordon et al. [2023], the growing popularity of RA should not overshadow four real underlying tensions: genealogy and holism (the extent to which a RA vision sticks to its lineage and the exact scope behind the term “holism”), equity and power (the extent to which the systemic issues of equity, justice and power are given some weight or sidelined), definition (either process<fnref n="22" />- or outcomes-based, and more or less narrow/flexible), and departure (from mere layering on existing industrial systems to complete transformation of the food system).

While this analytical framework is certainly relevant, what is even more compelling is how the various narratives the authors uncover enable us to move beyond our initial understanding of RA as merely a scale-up from the soil, toward a broader and more complex object — beyond the farm level and potentially as far-reaching as the whole food system — having economic, social, and ecological benefits (the three dimensions of the conventional sustainability narrative).

Indeed, many of these discourses extend well beyond soil conservation: Regenerative Cultures and Agroecology and Food Sovereignty explicitly address social, economic, and cultural systems, including supply chains, food justice, and democratic participation, while First Nations and Deep Holism discourses emphasize relational ontologies and ecological identity. Gordon et al. [2023] also discuss holistic and nested interpretations of RA, with the Deep Holism discourse emphasizing that “the whole is in the part,” suggesting an ecological continuum framing.

<footnote n="20">²⁰Narratives give meaning and create discursive frames through which to unite the movements, principles, and practices of sustainable agriculture and capture key events and actors [Bless et al., 2023].</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Our free edit of the quote</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²Meaning practice.</footnote>
The authors identify “departure” as one of four key tensions in RA, noting that RA spans a spectrum from industrial-compatible practices to radical reimagining of human-nature relationships, raising ontological questions. Finally, the article critiques narrow, outcomes- or processes-based definitions of RA (e.g., soil carbon metrics) and instead highlights discourses that embed RA in broader socio-political and ecological paradigms.

Therefore, we can further frame RA as a relativist aspiration to scale up from the soil to a broader or holistic object — how social, technical, and economic structures or systems are organized within the ecological Matryoshka dolls continuum (cultivated ecosystems / “natural” ecosystems / biosphere) — for the purpose of rendering more or less global services beyond mere food production, which necessarily raises the question of (conflicting) ontologies, concerns, and priorities.

## 7.3 Regenerative agriculture: a platform to reclaim relevance for earlier sustainable agriculture narratives or a lowest common denominator?

While the interpretative flexibility may help explain RA's growing popularity [Gordon et al., 2023], what is most significant is that RA offers each earlier sustainable agriculture narrative losing relevance a chance to overcome (at least in principle) its past limitations and critiques [Bless et al., 2023].

Indeed, organic farming (OF) farms became larger and increasingly monocultural and conventionalized (“Organic 2.0”), with supply dominated by corporate actors and trade networks prioritizing exports from the Global South to the Global North, and focused more on input exclusion than holistic principles. OF-influenced RA, especially through the concept of “regenerative organic,” is being used to distinguish a return to OF’s original holistic and ecological principles (“Organic 3.0”), including social justice and community wellbeing.

Similarly, conservation agriculture (SCA) has been criticized for corporate dominance, reliance on chemical inputs, and limited applicability beyond monocultural cropping systems. SCA-influenced RA incorporates SCA’s soil health principles (e.g., minimal tillage) but expands to include livestock integration and a stronger emphasis on reducing external inputs, appealing to those disillusioned with SCA’s industrial leanings [Gordon et al., 2023].

As previously discussed, SAI was seen as “business as usual,” emphasizing productivity and technology without addressing power dynamics or justice, leading to its decline. RA then gained traction as SAI waned, offering a more ecologically grounded alternative that still appeals to mainstream actors [Bless et al., 2023].

Finally, AE’s transformative potential is constrained by its marginalization in Global
North policy and resistance to institutional co-option, despite its strong justice and equity focus. While RA lacks AE's structural critique, it may serve as a stepping-stone for mainstream actors toward AE's more radical goals [Gordon et al., 2023].

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: The current challenges for sustainable agriculture narratives, their overlaps, and the potential gap through which regenerative agriculture has emerged in Bless et al. [2023]</figcaption></figure>

Duru et al. [2022] argue that RA is often promoted based on the lowest common denominator of various agricultural models (e.g., permaculture, organic, conservation agriculture), allowing many systems to claim the RA label without changing practices.

## 7.4 The transformative potential of Regenerative Agriculture: science in action and the carbon-captured “high tech” agriculture co-option risk(s)

The heterogeneous nature of the RA discourse coalition, RA's "ill-defined, vague and malleable" definition [Gordon et al., 2023], combined with the potentially irreconcilable views of stakeholders retrofitting RA to existing agendas, creates fertile ground for what Callon describe as "science in action": a phase in which knowledge is still being constructed and is particularly vulnerable to influence by powerful actors. Decision-making is then vulnerable to power asymmetries where some actors have more power to shape outcomes in their favor, leading to inequitable environmental governance [Mermet, 2011]. Those
with the most resources — corporations, governments, and large NGOs organized in heterogeneous networks — can interlock systems of finance, governance, and discourse and can weigh on how environmental research is produced to conform<fnref n="23" /> with certain narratives [Borie and Bracking, 2024]. All in all, these actors are best positioned to shape the narrative and define what RA ultimately means. Put differently, the current lack of robust scientific evidence [Bless et al., 2023] leaves RA open to being moulded by those with the greatest power and reach.

The Restoration for Profit discourse is an example of RA being shaped by carbon-focused, scalable, and investment-friendly narratives [Gordon et al., 2023]. In our view, there may be a powerful alliance at play between agri-food corporations seeking to maintain large-scale operations, technology providers (selling “climate-smart” technology advances to the former), other (outside agriculture) corporations and investment funds seeking inexpensive and scalable solutions to either offset their GHG emissions or speculate on the future of carbon markets, and finally other carbon markets stakeholders (in particular carbon offsets certification bodies and the MRV<fnref n="24" /> ecosystem living off of the intermediation between the carbon offsets producers and consumers/buyers).

It is indeed worth noting the rise of RA coincided with the launch of the 4 per 1000 Initiative at COP21 in 2015, which positioned soil carbon sequestration as a climate mitigation strategy [Bless et al., 2023, Gordon et al., 2023] and natural capital valuation as primary goals [Gordon et al., 2023]. Since then, interest from carbon markets and climate governance actors in (SCA-inspired) RA has grown rapidly. Ardian confirmed in June 2025²⁵ the rising demand for carbon credit from corporates. The credit standing of corporates<fnref n="26" /> as offtakers is taken into account when assessing the robustness of expected cash flows. This helps developers and investors to achieve scalability and deliver “economically sustainable” projects. Other interviewed carbon farming RA actors from Agreena or Tourba (project developers or sellers of evidence of carbon sequestration) indicated farm/parcel size could be a threshold to identify areas/farms with the highest RA potential.

Within the LSS debate field, SCA-inspired RA provides fresh support for LSP advocates, given the only advantage OF<fnref n="27" /> had over LSP was on soil/below-ground biodiversity (rather than fauna or flora), which is now contested [Stoop, 2023]. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that tillage (unavoidable in OF or LSH) may reduce soil biodiversity more than the use of pesticides, although controversies on these results remain under temperate climate[Duru et al., 2022]. The head of strategy and development of AgroSolutions, an in-house agronomy studies consultancy of InVivo — one of the leading European

<footnote n="23">²³Defining the sciencewashing risk we referred to in our introduction.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴Standing for monitoring, reporting, and verification.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵During a conference on “Insuring Nature’s resilience” organized by SCOR.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶Of which “Big Tech” is currently perceived as strong on the back of the AI revolution.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷To some extent fungible with LSH as we discussed before.</footnote>
agricultural cooperative groups — advising the European Commission on the CRCF<fnref n="28" /> regulation, defined SCA as RA's fundamental pillar. For [Nestlé, 2024], RA or SCA seem to be interchangeable terms, although it is also in principle a “concept” that “intends to bring together the best of a number of approaches (conservation agriculture, sustainable intensification, climate-smart farming, agroecology, low input farming, precision farming...), into the ambition to not only maintain but actively help improve and restore natural resources.”

RA can be seen as emphasizing biophysical measurable (and scalable) processes or outcomes (like soil carbon storage) [Bless et al., 2023, Gordon et al., 2023] while downplaying more complex social, political, and ecological dimensions [Bless et al., 2023], such as (agro)biodiversity<fnref n="29" /> — or “the non-quantifiable aspects of a regenerative mindset” [Gordon et al., 2023]. This whole dynamic may reflect what Borie and Bracking [2024] term “sciencewashing” — the strategic use of scientific language, or “just enough science” and authority to enable investment and legitimize green claims without robust empirical grounding.

This narrow focus risks reducing regenerative RA to a one-dimensional fix — carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation — and thus overlook the critical importance of social and power dynamics. By promoting scalable, “one-size-fits-all” and standardized approaches that can be layered over existing industrial systems, RA is stripped of its relational, place-based, and justice-oriented dimensions and fails to recognize the transformative potential of diverse knowledge systems and voices, including those of traditional and Indigenous communities. This issue is further amplified as these place-based voices are extremely fragmented and often lack the structural cohesion and financial resources to project a unified, universally resonant message and influence institutions shaping the research and policy agendas — unlike corporate actors who share common standards, policies, interests, and communication modes. This further weakens their ability to be visible in dominant discourses and shape RA based on their context-specific agricultural practices [Bless et al., 2023].

Abstracted and decontextualized, RA would mirror the systemic approach, as per Scoones et al. [2020]'s framework<fnref n="30" /> in Bless et al. [2023], of SAI and SCA earlier paradigms. By

<footnote n="28">²⁸The Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation (EU/2024/3012) creates the first EU-wide voluntary framework for certifying carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products across Europe. It was published in December 2024 and is not yet operational in terms of full implementation, as it requires the development of detailed certification methodologies and infrastructure.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹The importance of which was highlighted in the context of the LSS debate.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰At a very high level, Scoones et al. [2020] propose that sustainability transformations can be understood through three complementary approaches:</footnote>

<footnote>* Structural — Focuses on deep changes to political, economic, and social systems.</footnote>

<footnote>* Systemic — Targets specific parts of systems (like institutions or technologies) to steer change.</footnote>

<footnote>* Enabling — Emphasizes the power of individuals and communities to act and build capacity.</footnote>
concentrating on specific elements of a system (no-till drills and herbicides for SCA and precision technologies/genetically modified organisms for SAI) that could be leveraged to trigger change, SCA and SAI are shown to have eventually conformed with CA ("business-as-usual risk") rather than deploying transformative potential. With business-as-usual risk comes opportunity cost risk, which we address in the following section. As a result, RA may carry the risk of inadvertently reinforcing the very structures of inequality and ecological degradation it seeks to transform.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Conceptual framework utilising a genealogical method (Garland 2014) and approaches to transformation [Scoones et al., 2020] in [Bless et al., 2023]</figcaption></figure>

## 7.5 Regenerative Agriculture: junk agroecology or agroecology within the distributive dimensions repressed by academic circles and grassroot movements?

Not only may RA lack structural and enabling dimensions, but it also risks sidelining existing sustainable agriculture narratives with less institutional and financial backing — first and foremost AE, which remains the only approach that fully aligns with both structural and enabling transformation pathways [Bless et al., 2023]. As previously discussed, AE explicitly challenges power asymmetries in the agri-food system, advocating for the redistribution of land, resources, and decision-making authority. It is the only framework that places equity, justice, and autonomy at the core of transformation [Bless et al., 2023].

However, despite its strengths, AE faces three major barriers to becoming a central nar-
rative within the RA discourse coalition. First, AE's anti-corporate stance and rejection of industrial-scale, input-intensive agriculture make it inherently resistant to co-optation (and negotiation). This limits its appeal to actors seeking scalable, market-based solutions. Consequently, AE is often excluded from multistakeholder platforms where RA is being defined and promoted [Bless et al., 2023].

Second, AE's principled rejection of certain technologies and production models (e.g., GMOs, monocultures, export-oriented supply chains) can hinder its in contexts and policy arenas dominated by large-scale farming. This rigidity may alienate actors who are sympathetic to AE's goals but constrained by existing agri-food infrastructures [Bless et al., 2023].

Third, Alonso-Fradejas et al. [2020] argue that corporate actors have begun appropriating the language and aesthetics of AE while stripping it of its political content. For instance, Nestlé [2024] claim to be guided by agroecological principles, yet the term "AE" appears only once in a 36-page document — and is never defined. The holistic model presented lacks normative anchoring and fails to engage with the broader agri-food system. Alonso-Fradejas et al. [2020] thus label this version of RA as “junk agroecology” — a technocratic, market-driven approach that promotes superficial fixes without addressing redistribution, power, or justice. This rather radical assertion echoes the (non-binding) definition of RA given by an executive at Agence Française de Développement, a public development bank: “AE without the social dimension.”

The partial appropriation of AE extends to biodiversity, although we found no supporting evidence in the literature. Most studies suggest that RA is expected to enhance biodiversity, which is generally viewed as a prerequisite for sustainable food systems [Schreefel et al., 2020]. However, we found no indication that biodiversity is treated as a foundational pillar of RA — as it is in AE, according to Duru et al. [2022] — in terms of both processes and outcomes, particularly when compared to the emphasis placed by LSH advocates. While biodiversity is clearly a recurring theme, it remains unclear what is meant by its “improvement”: Does it refer to above- or below-ground biodiversity? At what scale? Is it agrobiodiversity or wild biodiversity? (see, for example, [Nestlé, 2024]).

In our view, the central contradiction between AE's purported transformative potential and its actual operational viability/partial capture lies in the distributive dimension of transformation, which we briefly touched on in the context of the LSS debate. Here it plays out in two insidious ways: first, AE is marginalized in the RA coalition; second, it is partially absorbed. Mermet [2018], speaking about our collective relationship with the urgency of the climate change crisis, identified three forms of repression of the distributive dimensions, two of which are likewise relevant in the context of RA and AE. AE's normative anchor is in fact a normative repression of the distributive dimension of the current agri-food or agrarian systems, whereby it is deemed entirely unacceptable to
explicitly consider solutions that might even very modestly perpetuate current inequali-
ties or power balances. The repression is also a fantasized repression: AE is sometimes
romanticized as inherently beneficial for all humans, with little attention to the negative
distributive consequences of the contemplated redistribution — as if access to resources
or environment were a "non-issue", such as the limited capacity of low-income households
in Europe to absorb any food cost increase related to AE transition or drastically change
diets overnight [Stoop, 2023].

Yet, without explicitly confronting the distributive dimension of the negotiation, stakes
are likely to remain unclear and uncertain, blocking the collective action and oper-
ational viability of AE (Global South actors in South/North supply chains or farm-
ers/cooperatives within Western agri-food systems). The organization of society (and
more broadly global order) is indeed the result of a complex, conflict-ridden equilib-
rium built over time and reflective of the cumulative distributive legacy. AE proponents
probably should recognize that this model is precisely the framework through which ques-
tions of distribution are negotiated and that they cannot abstract from it by decree. If
AE proponents are unwilling to engage with those distributive questions, how can they
meaningfully influence the RA discourse coalation? What are the implications for a global
reinsurer venturing in RA?
# 8 Regenerative Agriculture practices-based standards for insurance solutions: what other challenges?

At this point in our thesis, it worth pausing and reflecting on the key takeaways so far.

There is an entanglement of concepts and models that tend to be grouped under the label of RA. These concepts share similarities but also exhibit fundamental differences — notably in the scope each one covers, the role of biodiversity, and several other systemic dimensions. AE has strong foundational principles but is largely limited by a structural intentional or imposed inability to engage effectively within the current agrifood system. Some influential actors in the international, financial and political circles may be seizing the opportunity given by confusion around its definition to appropriate and shape its model so that it aligns as closely as possible with existing productivist systems and can be integrated into prevailing socio-technical regimes.

It is also crucial for SCOR to understand the reality, scope, and consequences of the model it may promote or insure — something which gradually appears to be all but trivial given the scientific, societal, and systemic complexity of the topic.

In this section, we explore other challenges to RA standardization starting with the definitional ambiguity, a point we already discussed.

## 8.1 Regenerative Agriculture: neither a practices-based definition nor any universal and holistic evidence

Thus RA can only be meaningfully defined in terms of general philosophy, much like AE is. Academia are adamant that RA (as a set of practices) remains a concept marked by definitional ambiguity and conceptual fluidity across academic, policy, and practitioner domains. There is currently neither a legal, regulatory or codified definition of RA [Duru et al., 2022, Husson et al., 2024, Newton et al., 2020, Dabalen et al., 2024], nor a clear scientific definition of RA [Schreefel et al., 2020], nor has a widely accepted definition emerged in common usage [Duru et al., 2022]. Instead, multiple interpretations coexist [Gordon et al., 2023], shaped by the diverse actors and schools of thought that invoke the term [Duru et al., 2022], and no consensus has been reached [Khangura et al., 2023].

This plurality of meanings reflects the fact that RA is largely an extra-academic construct, with limited grounding in scientific literature and empirical validation. Bless et al. [2023] further characterize RA as a rapidly emerging but conceptually ambiguous narrative, whose scope and meaning remain contested. As we have seen, rather than a clearly delineated agricultural system, it is more accurately described as a narrative or philosophical orientation. The authors caution that RA is often grounded in aspirational promises — such as carbon sequestration or enhanced biodiversity — rather than in measurable out-
comes. Empirical data and standardized indicators to substantiate these claims remain scarce [Husson et al., 2024].

This definitional uncertainty poses significant challenges for stakeholders — including researchers, farmers, advisors, policymakers, and consumers — who seek to understand, evaluate the purported benefits of and operationalize RA in practice [Khangura et al., 2023, Newton et al., 2020]. In addition, scientific data to evaluate the impacts and ecosystem services of RA are scarce. Mechanisms linking practices to outcomes are poorly documented [Duru et al., 2022]. Husson et al. [2024] echo this concern, stating that RA is frequently based on principles or specifications that do not guarantee a reduction in negative impacts or delivery of promised ecosystem services.

Evidence suggests that combining RA practices, such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, can synergistically enhance soil carbon sequestration and improve soil health. However, the effectiveness of these stacked practices varies by agroecosystem and requires site-specific studies [Khangura et al., 2023]. As for the WB, despite being mentioned in global food and retail giants' public communication, the evidence that RA achieves triple wins (productivity, resilience, carbon sequestration) is scarce. There is significant heterogeneity of returns of RA practices depending on local pedoclimatic conditions, a difficult trade-off between carbon and nitrogen, and some issues as to which soil compartment is considered (shallow versus deep compartments) [Dabalen et al., 2024]<fnref n="31" />.

More fundamentally, the evidence discussed by Khangura et al. [2023] is of “ecological type.” It is largely of the same kind as the partially absorbed OF and/or SCA documented evidence (as presented in Rodale Institute [2014]). It may be valid from a pure ecology standpoint under a narrow definition of ecology. However, our analysis now makes it clear that assessing a holistic RA in a truly holistic way means we cannot evaluate it through a single lens — unless we are willing to ignore other dimensions or to accept an implicit value bias.

This situation is not likely to change anytime soon, and SCOR, as a reinsurer, would not have the level of understanding required to define technical standards in context of high definitional ambiguity.

## 8.2 The four levels of Regenerative Agriculture: should we even define universal (practices-based) standards?

Besides the fact that SCOR neither has the expertise nor the legitimacy to define RA practices-based standards, a wider question is whether defining standards (whoever does) in the context of nature is even relevant. Soloviev and Landua [2016] insist RA resists

<footnote n="31">³¹They introduce yet another lineage to RA, Climate Smart Agriculture (“CSA”), recognized by the FAO in 2010.</footnote>
definitive categorization. At its core, RA aspires to restore the health, vitality, and evo-
lutionary capacity of entire living systems. In this context, the act of “defining” RA
is inherently problematic. Etymologically, the term “define” originates from the Latin
definire, meaning “to bound” or “to bring to an end.” This notion of delimitation stands
in direct opposition to the principles of regeneration, which emphasize openness, adapt-
ability, and ongoing renewal.

Elevitch et al. [2018] further suggest why: “the site specificity of agroecosystems and multifunctionality of integrated farming systems present both an opportunity and challenge for setting standards for RA and agroforestry (‘AF’): is it possible to reconcile the high potential of site-specific agricultural systems with the standardization necessary to certify them?” More assertively, “not defining it is fundamental for achieving regenerative outcomes” [Gordon et al., 2023]. “Insisting on a single definition would put a wall around our agricultural landscapes, separating them from the natural world. This is the impact of modern, chemical ‘clean cultivation’ techniques that can remove all traces of living, biodiverse habitats or possible natural volatility from the fields where our food grows” [Soloviev and Landua, 2016], echoing aforementioned “conventional agricultural risk” resulting from standardization.

Beyond “conventional agriculture risk,” standardization carries heightened risks, includ-
ing the opportunity cost risk of sacrificing adaptability and future optionality. Soloviev
and Landua [2016] have developed a framework around four levels of RA, each having
increasing ambition and complexity relative to the initial conditions. “Each level [func-
tional, integrative, systemic, evolutionary] has a different capacity to hold and manage
complexity and different scales of potential transformational impact. Each level will
emerge as the eco-social capacity and capability of the farmers, the land, and the place
evolve.”
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Four levels of regenerative agriculture in [Soloviev and Landua, 2016]</figcaption></figure>

In Functional RA, farmers adjust practices based on soil conditions and climate, but the system remains largely reactive. RA can be a positive force, but it operates within a relatively fixed set of practices.

In Integrative RA, the focus is on the whole ecosystem regeneration, including biodiversity, water cycles, and landscape restoration. Farmers begin designing systems — using a broader palette of tools (e.g., agroforestry, holistic grazing) — tailored to the farm's ecology, allowing for dynamic responses to environmental changes.
In Systemic<fnref n="32" /> RA, farmers and communities co-create systems that benefit from com-
plexity and disturbance (antifragility). “Agriculture produces strategies and actions that
move towards robustness and resilience”. Pattern recognition and generative frameworks
allow for continuous evolution and innovation. Regeneration is a way of thinking. The
farm is no longer an isolated entity but part of interconnected enterprise ecosystems and a
living system that adapts and thrives through collaboration and shared learning. “Farms
become woven into an ecosystem of enterprises operating in (and possibly beyond) their
bioregions”. While the authors do not use this notion, our understanding is that Level
3 RA is a complete rethinking of the agrarian (or production) system and how various
stakeholders interact amongst each other with more fluidity and agility.

Finally, Evolutionary RA focus on deep pattern understanding of place; cultural and
ecological regeneration over generation. Systems are designed from the unique essence of
place, allowing infinite expressions of regenerative potential<fnref n="33" />. Agricultural adaptation
becomes embedded in cultural rituals, stories and regenerative producer webs, deeply
interwoven with the identity and evolution of the place. “The objective of the fourth
level of Regenerative Agriculture is to develop a diversity of global and local regenerative
producer webs. These are an advanced evolution of supply chains, the currently dominant
concept of how agricultural (and other material) goods are exchanged.” While the authors
do not use this notion, our understanding is that Level 4 RA is a complete rethinking of the
agrifood (or production AND distribution) system and how various stakeholders interact
amongst each other, oscillating between short distance and long-distance relationships.

The last two levels are reminiscent of the Regenerative Cultures, Deep Holism, and Sub-
tle Energies storylines from Gordon et al. [2023]. Arguably, they may sound mystical,
esoteric, or difficult to operationalize. Nonetheless, optionality obviously increases as
systems move from fixed practices (Level 1, bearing conventionalization risk as we have
previously shown) to creative design (Level 2), to systemic co-evolution (Level 3), and
finally to culturally embedded regeneration (Level 4). Adaptability deepens with each
level, shifting from tactical adjustments to strategic redesign, then to systemic natural
or "nature-based" resilience, and finally to cultural transformation. In the end, RA's
layered framework resists rigid definitions precisely because its power lies in the accession
to knowledge and agency based on a deeper understanding of regeneration potentialities
in evolving context-specific ways. Dorin [2020] expresses a similar line of thinking when
stating: "AE calls for a science of complexity, of true human autonomy in nature (what we
call 'auto-eco-nomics') or, in other words and simultaneously: a science of in situ diversity
and complementarity, of biological synergies and ecological functions, marrying local cul-

<footnote n="32">³²Systemic understood here as the “whole system” rather than part of the system, as per Scoones et al. [2020]</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³As a side comment the head of strategy and development of AgroSolutions underscored the impor-
tance of recognizing the unique legacies of local agricultural practices as a key factor in shaping the
transition toward more sustainable farming systems.</footnote>
tures and natures, hybridizing generic and localized knowledge, learning through practice
and from peers, centralizing and decentralizing governance, and constantly reinventing
fragile equilibriums.”

RA most broadly defined may thus have to remain a principles-based approach in essence,
closely linked to AE, in form and substance. Would it mean that AE, despite its shortfalls,
is the most suitable anchor for a RA framework or principles-based standards?

8.3 Agriculture intrinsically not amenable to practices-based stan-
dardization?

So far, we have discussed RA in very general terms and used it as general concept. The
underlying assumption being that a priori just any agriculture can become regenerative.
While we looked at the origins, lineages, and tensions around the term, we have not
touched on the heterogeneity and diversity of agriculture(s)<fnref n="34" />. However, the spectrum of
initial conditions may well constrain, limit or even broaden the potentialities.

Yet, we have established a theoretical framework for RA and identified various dimensions
by which various lineages of RA or general forms of agriculture can be distinguished from
one another. First, all farming practices reflect a hierarchy in concerns and priorities (the
“why” question): SAI focuses on negative impacts reduction through inputs efficiency
and optimizing land sparing, AE on integrative “nature-based” LSH agriculture, OF on
cleaner inputs and human health, SCA on climate change and production resilience,
permaculture on ecosystemic self-sufficiency. Each farming practice does not necessarily
ignore or neglect others’ concerns and priorities. But each reflects choices or arbitrages
as “it appears difficult to reduce all impacts and maximize all ecosystem services while
achieving a high level of production” [Duru et al., 2022].

<footnote n="34"><sup>34</sup>Indeed, we have barely touched on the geographical difference between developed countries which have experienced very advanced modernization and countries which went only as far as the Green Rev-olution.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Impacts (right side of the diagonal) and ecosystem services provided to the society (left side) for crop production in CA (red), OF (green) and SCA (blue). In this figure, the higher the level (external envelope), the greater the services and the nutritional quality of the productions, and the lower the negative impacts [Duru et al., 2022]</figcaption></figure>

We have also seen how each sustainable agriculture narrative or practice differ (the “how” question) on the role of man in agriculture (degree of human labour intensity), its place in nature/agriculture, the extent to which agriculture serves local or global markets/customers, the degree of dependency with the world outside agriculture for inputs (full reliance for CA, autarky for permaculture), the reliance on/congruence with capital-intensive technology (“high tech agriculture”) or (more cost effective?) "nature-based" idiosyncratic solutions (“low tech agriculture”), which all link (to a varying extent) to congruence with farm/size, ranging from 1 or 2 ha in Madagascar to thousands of hectares in Brazil or the US.

We can reasonably infer that the range of possible trajectories for regenerative agriculture mirrors the complexity and variability of its initial conditions. In the end, RA is multifaceted because so is agriculture. Legacy is an integral part of the initial starting point, the potentialities and the means available to farmers or agrosystems. This “squared” space — both in starting conditions and in potential pathways along the dimensions — may be the deeper reason why setting universal standards may be unrealistic.
which conditions/trade-offs. In a distinction that may seem overly simplistic between
natural and planted forests, Swiss Re [2016] assert that “natural forests are difficult to
value for underwriting purposes due to the multitude of different tree species they contain
and the sparse information available regarding age, yield class, growth rates, etc.” On the
contrary, “as planted forests rely on intensive land use and focus on a small number of
valuable species, they create a high concentration of values and hence a heightened risk
exposure [and] this is where forestry insurance proves to be a valuable tool.” In other
words, if a forest produces timber from a few species, and ideally one, insurers can value
the “assets” at risk, that is standing timber as a function of diameter at breast height.
Aggregating risk exposures across multiple productive forests is then doable and so is
the pricing of risk mutualization. On the contrary, valuing a diverse natural forest is not
possible, and insurability out of sight.

This is at odds with the known benefits of continuous cover mix-species forestry (CCMSF). CCMSF is a sustainable forest management approach that maintains a permanent forest canopy while promoting a mix of tree species and ages. It mimics natural forest dynamics and avoids clear-cutting. Multi-aged forests have been shown to generally exhibit productivity that is comparable with even-aged systems. Thanks to their diversities (species diversity, structural diversity and spatial diversity), these forests are better able to withstand disturbances — because of varied tree sizes, canopy layers, and species composition — and recover more quickly from disturbances — due to their structural complexity and diversity of age class [O’Hara and Ramage, 2013].

Swiss Re [2016]'s framing — which arguably may be outdated — obviously rewards foresters operating more economizable forests (i.e., closer to monocultures) and excludes from market insurance unorthodox forestry practices. The risk lies in discounting completely all ecosystem services (other than provisioning) provided by forests, jeopardizing the long-term provisioning services of the considered forests and incentivizing foresters to shift towards standardized forestry management (an outcome akin to conventional agriculture risk<fnref n="36" /> and in fine bearing nature loss risk). Standardized forests can only yield standardized outcomes, a point we will further develop in the next section.

<footnote n="36">³⁶A point we already explored on conventionalization of organic farming through certification.</footnote>
# 9 A principles- and outcomes-based framework for Generative Agriculture insurance solutions: a more realistic way forward?

## 9.1 Nature resilience as a standardized and systems-level ultimate outcome?

In our view, the four levels of RA framework are absolutely fundamental in understanding what RA is to achieve from a (re)insurer's perspective. Concerns and priorities reflected in various visions of RA practices and outcomes depend on each stakeholder. The question we have to ask ourselves is: what are the concerns, priorities, expectations relative to RA from a global (re)insurer's perspective (other than it being a mere business opportunity)? Indeed, as presented in the introduction of this thesis, Cuckston [2022] suggests corporates should unearth their own and their clients'/stakeholders' interests in the systemic risk from nature loss. Indeed, "systemic risks are risks arising from the breakdown of the entire system, rather than the failure of individual parts. They are characterized by modest tipping points combining indirectly to produce large failures with cascading interactions of physical and transition risks."

Our foundational postulate is that (re)insurers must ensure the world remains insurable<fnref n="37" />, if only to avoid triggering the next financial crisis [Clark, 2025]. This means that, at a global and aggregate level, there must continue to be people, ecosystems, and activities resilient enough for mutualization to function effectively — when “acts of God” inevitably occur and impact only a subset of the insurable space. In this light, any evolution of agriculture, including RA, should aim to enhance the overall insurability of any of the business or activities (L&H or P&C) currently insured by SCOR, whether directly or indirectly related to nature. In other words, the ultimate objective is to foster a state in which nature is characterized by sustained — or even increased — resilience, thereby supporting the long-term viability of the principle of insurance itself. Intuitively, if RA(s) are not amenable to evidence at the farm-level, it may be less challenging to define relevant nature's resilience and ecosystems health indicators or parameters on an aggregated basis.

One might argue that this concern — ensuring a sustainable trajectory or nature's resilience — could be shared by any stakeholder. Farmers and agribusiness corporations may well endorse “best practices” on the basis of available information at time t (endogenous risk management). However, it is not sufficient to guarantee resilience, which not only depends on natural hazards, but also on other farmers' practices. Indeed, zu Ermgassen et al. [2022] insist “the overarching goal of a nature-positive economy is for the sum total of all economic actors' activities to deliver net improvements in nature.” And

<footnote n="37">³⁷Guided by financial press articles such as [Smith, 2025].</footnote>
to add: “to achieve this, it will be necessary to seek the achievement of nature-positive outcomes at the level of individual firms [here: farms], nested within national or sectoral strategies that seek to do the same whilst also providing some degree of global coordination.” We can think for instance of an AE small-scale farm surrounded by hundreds of hectares of conventional cereal plains. It is doubtful that such localized farming practices will yield significantly higher resilience than surrounding farms. Regarding outcomes, there is an element of interdependence between farmers at a more or less localized level. And resilience can only be measured as an average, in space and time. Hence, outcomes should not only be targeted at the organizational level [here: the farms] but in the context of wider systems [zu Ermgassen et al., 2022]. “Only systemic outcomes can confirm that a regeneration is taking place” [Soloviev and Landua, 2016]. This raises the question of “deciding at what scale to monitor and what impacts are in scope is therefore key, as is selecting metrics that can be aggregated and compared between sectors and scales” [White et al., 2024]. Defining the system is also probably not anecdotical.

This is where insurers, by the very nature of their role, occupy a unique vantage point to perform “cross-sectional” or “sectorial-wide” risk assessments. Unlike individual policyholders, whose risks are shaped by specific, often idiosyncratic characteristics, insurers operate at a systemic level. While the bilateral relationship with each insured party may be marked by information asymmetry in favor of the insured, this dynamic shifts once risks are aggregated at portfolio level. At scale, insurers gain a broader, more integrated view of exposures — effectively reversing the asymmetry. The same logic applies between insurers and reinsurers.

The fundamental responsibility of insurers (and even more so of reinsurers) may thus well lie in assessing and ensuring that the collective trajectory of systems — emerging from the sum of individual heterogeneous behaviors and practices — remains on a sustainable path. After all, SCOR’s raison d’être is: “combining the art and science of risk to protect societies,” in other words, making sure individual ecosystem-level risk management makes sense when aggregated at the level of multiple ecosystems or even the biosphere, thus (ideally) providing another layer of derisking.

## 9.2 Outcomes- versus practices-based standards, moral hazard downside risk versus option value upside risk

Before further exploring the contours of an outcomes-based framework for RA insurance solutions, we must first turn back to the question of possible standards. In general terms — not specifically for ecosystem regeneration which can be lengthy — practices-based standards typically focus on prescribed actions whereas outcomes-based standards on measurable results [Elevitch et al., 2018].
Newton et al. [2020] suggests there is and may always remain uncertainty on the domain of validity of the causal relationship between practice(s) and outcome(s)<fnref n="38" />. In other words, “actors should ensure a well-established link between the practice and the outcome to demonstrate that the practice positively affects nature” [World Economic Forum, 2024]<fnref n="39" />. Elevitch et al. [2018] illustrates this issue in biodiversity conservation. It is indeed mostly based on practices rather than outcomes and thus “certification itself generally cannot be taken as direct evidence of conservation effectiveness”. World Economic Forum [2024] rather sees the glass half full, as “for instance, the area conserved will often be proportional to the outcome achieved” and “the ease of measuring practices eliminates the need for nature to respond to interventions” for “nature-positive financing”.

Less narrowly, defining RA by its practices implies being either unconcerned by (some) outcomes or somewhat open-minded on possible outcomes [Elevitch et al., 2018]. We could even argue that the extent to which outcomes are due to practices is not knowable (cf. controversies on baseline calculations of carbon offsets standards, [Mundy, 2024]). Symmetrically, defining RA by its outcomes implies either being unconcerned about practices or accepting/welcoming the fact that just any practice may result in the desired outcome(s) [Elevitch et al., 2018].

This may well have quite profound implications given the tensions around RA presented in this thesis. Not only “any and all forms of agricultural practice that actively restore soil quality, biodiversity, ecosystems health, water quality…” may well suit an outcomes-based definition but “some processes that many proponents of RA might not commonly consider to be regenerative may be useful in meeting the goals of RA under an outcome oriented definition” [Newton et al., 2020]. It is worth keeping in mind given the opportunity offered by RA to previous sustainable agriculture narratives to reclaim past relevance, knowing some of their fundamental technical divergences. And even within the AE spectrum, we are aware in within the French grassroots landscape of sectarian squabbles between Pour Une Agriculture du Vivant and Association pour la Promotion d'une Agriculture Durable.

Elevitch et al. [2018] uses recent OF certification tensions in the US to illustrate another dimension to consider. The growing desire by farmers and producers to distinguish between practices that “go beyond” the requirements of practices-based USDA OF certification in terms of beneficial impacts pushed them to release the Recommended Framework for Regenerative Organic Certification. It was designed with a tiered approach to enable continuous adjustment, adaptation and improvement of practices over time and support ongoing innovation<fnref n="40" />.

While there may well be other factors at play, we shall now focus on the stakes from the

<footnote n="38">³⁸Time, pedoclimatic conditions, non-linear effects, isolated effect of stacked practices, etc...</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹World Economic Forum</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰We assume, based on outcomes.</footnote>
perspective of the agriculture (re)insurance sector. The question is somewhat different as (re)insurers typically insure over a one-year horizon the outcomes (production volumes, yield, etc) of (business as usual, not regenerative) activities which may or may not be based on practices-based standards, outcomes-based standards being out of the equation. Typically, agriculture is seen as prone to moral hazard risk, i.e., a situation where one stakeholder may take on risk because he does not bear the full consequences of that risk due to some form of protection or guarantee (here insurance). As long as the actual practices of farmers cannot be observed by the (re)insurers, but only the resulting outcomes, the existence of insurance may induce the insured to choose a riskier behavior than if insurance was not available. "Moral hazard is a problem for many insurance markets, e.g., health insurance or car insurance, and has been identified as a major reason for the absence of private insurance markets for most agricultural risks" [Baumgärtner, 2007].

The question then is the following: in the context of RA (not business as usual, but potentially lengthy and risky regeneration), how should an insurer approach the decision to offer insurance products? Does the above warrant discarding completely the option of not setting practices-based standards (i.e. opting at most for a principles- and outcomes-based approach)?

First, (re)insurers may elect not to offer insurance altogether, irrespective of the practices versus outcomes discussion. The upside would be limited (the preserved financial capital) but the downside significant (nature loss risk, insurability jeopardized). Second, if (re)insurers elect to offer insurance, they may elect to set practices-based standards. The upside would also be limited. Indeed, it may be correlated to positive outcomes, in very specific conditions, potentially out of “chance”, and without causality certainty, and even so, it may change over time. On the other hand, the downside would be significant, as there is no built-in optionality if (eventually bad) practices are shadowed by exogenous factors or good practices are no longer good enough. Third, they may elect to not set practices-based standards, despite insuring incremental outcomes (healthier ecological states) or the ultimate desired outcome (a fully regenerated ecosystem). The upside would be uncapped (built-in adaptability, optionality, innovation, etc... in case good outcomes are not due to practices) and the downside floored: moral hazard risk would be limited to the risk appetite and capital reserves of (re)insurers and can be mitigated with skin-in-the-game deductible structures.

## 9.3 Ecosystems, a universe of risk or of radical uncertainty?

The ecological goal — nature's resilience — sounds straightforward in theory. But the operating conditions under which (re)insurers would be expected to achieve it are anything but.

Indeed, at the risk of challenging SCOR's raison d'être, with nature and ecosystems —
whether cultivated or not —, we may well be in a universe of radical uncertainty rather
than one of risk. Based on Knight's distinction, the concept of risk and uncertainty can be
categorized into three levels depending on the amount of information available. In a risk
situation, the possible outcomes (or "states of the world") are known, and their associated
probabilities can be calculated or estimated. In contrast, an uncertainty situation arises
when the outcomes are known, but the probabilities of their occurrence are not. Finally,
in a case of radical uncertainty, neither the outcomes nor their probabilities are known,
making decision-making particularly complex and unpredictable.

Despite extensive information being available to us with the emergence of “big data”, the LSS debate shows that some fundamental environmental management questions are not only unsettled (of which hybridation potential between "natural processes-driven" agriculture and "technology-driven" agriculture or between SCA and OF<fnref n="41" /> for instance), but likely to remain so. The uncertainty surrounding these questions is not just about putting more efforts or financial resources in data and R&D to overcome technical controversies, but more of ontological nature. In the course of our thesis, we have encountered many articles questioning the domain of validity of certain agricultural practice’s purported benefits along only one dimension of the agricultural system (for instance one ecosystem service: production or productivity).

*Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture*, an article published in Nature in 2014 is a good example of that. The article draws conclusions on the beneficial impacts of residue retention and crop rotation on rainfed no-till systems crop yields in dry climates, but highlights that the “meta-analysis does not provide evidence that one principle regulates productivity more than the other”. However, in the absence of both (a risk in resource-poor and vulnerable smallholder farming systems), no-till may end up increasing the likelihood of yield losses rather than gains. It goes a long way in explaining how challenging it is to reach universal conclusions on just one aspect (here productivity) of cultivated ecosystems. It suggests being extremely prudent when prescribing practices.

The authors acknowledge that: “clearly, there are important environmental (for example,
reduced erosion and improved soil quality) and economic outcomes of continuous no-till
beyond the scope of the present analysis [our addition: other ecosystem services] that
might justify adoption at the farm scale and should be considered in a tradeoff analysis
against yield reductions.” In other words, when one ecosystem service alone is considered,
there is significant uncertainty at play surrounding the domain of validity, but there is
even more when other ecosystem services are brought into the equation. We shall keep
this in mind, as RA (in principle at least) purports to advance positive impacts across
all ecosystem services [Newton et al., 2020]. The triangle of incompatibility [Duru et al.,

<footnote n="41">⁴¹Duru et al. [2022] emphasizes that it is a "path whose full expression has not yet been technically achieved (at least superficial soil tillage is necessary to control weeds)".</footnote>
2022] appears to also be one of uncertainty.

Finally, the “competition for residues by livestock and other uses” is a limiting factor for residue retention practice adoption in resource-poor and vulnerable smallholder farming systems. As we have demonstrated, the social, technical and economic structures or systems organization within the ecological Matryoshka dolls continuum (cultivated ecosystems / “natural” ecosystems / biosphere), for the purpose of rendering more or less global services beyond mere food production, raises questions of (conflicting) ontologies, adding another layer of uncertainty in decision-making.

If RA practices are stacked — we looked in our example at what could be considered a basic version of RA —, the uncertainty probably further compounds, starting with the purely technical issue of isolating individual effects. If we consider cultivated ecosystems in proximity of natural ecosystems, it probably compounds even more. And so on, and so. Finally, and most dauntingly, ecosystems are living systems. At all scales, they are dynamic and evolve or adapt all the time. This evolution is not knowable, and perhaps the mother of all uncertainties.

If we are indeed in such a world of uncertainty, the reader may at this stage feel totally powerless to frame ecosystems management decision-making. It should in fact be the opposite. For change and uncertainties are also positive by design. Evolution works both ways, as we shall see in the next section, and may well be the only true “nature-based” solution — to this day unrivalled by “tech-based” solutions.

## 9.4 Strategy to manage uncertainty: biodiversity?

In the previous section, we have presented various (but probably not all) sources of uncertainty characterizing ecosystems. We shall leave RA ontological uncertainty aside for now and focus on agronomical or ecological uncertainty (i.e., purely agroecological uncertainty).

Our analysis of the LSS debate exposed how science's gradual understanding of ecosystem services shifted the terms of the technical debate between LSP and LSH. Biodiversity indeed came to be seen through the provisioning, supporting and regulating services provided to agriculture rather than only having existence or non-use value. We will get back to the stabilizing effect of biodiversity on ecosystem services in the next section.

Finally and more profoundly, “as Bruno Latour<fnref n="42" /> explained, in the face of nature's absolute might — nature is currently unleashing itself —, we are no longer in a position to decide what kind of nature we want. We are now in a situation of negotiation with nature. The principle of agroecology, and the concern for biodiversity, is about maximizing the possibilities of negotiating with nature and working on resilience. There is a form of

<footnote n="42">⁴²Presumably in *Face à Gaïa. Huit conférences sur le Nouveau Régime Climatique* (2015)</footnote>
nature that will be imposed on us, but it will not be imposed by a few environmentalists. It will be imposed by nature itself, which is far more powerful than the sphere of political ecology" [Couvet, 2023].

While Soloviev and Landua [2016] barely mention biodiversity (Integrative RA "can increase functional biodiversity"), their framing of Systemic and Evolutionary RA in terms of adaptability and optionality fundamentally mirrors the attributes of biodiversity. Interestingly however, they do quote Nassim Taleb, in the field of finance, on the concept of antifragility defined as "a large step beyond resilience, [...] the property of a system that actually benefits from disorder and disturbance".

In the field of ecology, Zamora et al. [2019]<fnref n="43" /> discuss the concept of ecosystem antifragility. In evolutionary biology, natural selection is inherently antifragile: random mutations introduce variation, environmental pressures act as stressors, selection favors traits that improve survival and reproduction. Over time, this process leads to greater adaptability and complexity, not despite disturbances, but because of them. Species and ecosystems that survive are not the most stable, but the most adaptable — those that benefit from environmental variability. They claim it goes beyond resilience and robustness by showing how biodiversity and complexity allow ecosystems to reorganize and improve after disturbances, through elimination of weak or maladapted species, creation of new ecological niches, evolutionary innovation.

## 9.5 Recognizing the insurance value of biodiversity for ecosystem services provisioning under risk, a seminal paper

In this section, we explore the seminal paper from Baumgärtner [2007] on the insurance value of biodiversity. Indeed, Baumgärtner [2007] confirms there is abundant evidence of the relationship between biodiversity and the absolute level and variability of ecosystem services<fnref n="44" /> (i.e., biodiversity enhances ecosystem's productivity and stability, two dimensions largely defining the ecological state of an ecosystem). Unfortunately, ecosystem services are not only valuable but they are also uncertain ("environmental stochasticity"), and biodiversity is costly<fnref n="45" /> (whether to protect it, or we would say nowadays restore it). Such a situation can be framed as a problem of decision-making under uncertainty, well-known to finance and economics practitioners or investors for risk management purposes.

Basically, by assuming an exponentially increasing biodiversity level cost function and a series of normal probability distributions of a given ecosystem service as a function of the

<footnote n="43">⁴³Not peer-reviewed as far as we know.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴Such as biomass production, control of water run-off, pollination, control of pests and diseases, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵For instance "an orchard farmer using insects' pollination services, the costs of biodiversity could result from setting aside land from agricultural cultivation and leaving it in a natural state, so that hedges and wetlands can provide habitat for insects."</footnote>
mean and variance of the biodiversity level$^{46}$, it can be shown that a biodiversity increase first increases the expected net ecosystem service benefit while minimizing its variance, while the costs of biodiversity are not too important at low levels of it, but then reaches a point where a marginal increase in biodiversity keeps reducing variance but barely increases the expected benefit, given the additional costs of biodiversity become larger and larger. Past an inflexion point, any incremental biodiversity reduces the expected benefit.

The ecosystem manager's preferences over his uncertain net ecosystem service benefit can be modelled through a standard expected utility function, according to which a high mean income and a low standard deviation of income are desirable, subject to an adjustment for risk aversion to the standard deviation of income. Under these assumptions, "for low levels of biodiversity there is no economic problem to solve as the mean increases and the variance decreases. Whereas for high levels of (increasingly costly) biodiversity, the ecosystem manager faces a trade-off: increasing the level of biodiversity reduces the standard deviation of income, but reduces mean income, too". As of a certain level of biodiversity, the decision to increase it is akin to a decision to buy insurance, "where a choice has to be made in order to optimally balance the two opposing goals of a high mean income and a low standard deviation of income."

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: Feasible and efficient distributions of net income y, in mean-variance space are represented by the income possibility frontier (solid line) [Baumgärtner, 2007]</figcaption></figure>

<footnote>$^{46}$Evidence from ecology suggest the following assumptions:</footnote>

<footnote>* the mean absolute level of the ecosystem service is a monotonically increasing and concave function of biodiversity — the more biodiversity, the higher the ecosystem service and this effect decreases in magnitude with the level of biodiversity</footnote>

<footnote>* the variance of ecosystem service is a monotonically decreasing and convex function of biodiversity — the more biodiversity, the less variance and this effect decreases in magnitude too with the level of biodiversity</footnote>
By thus choosing the level of biodiversity, the ecosystem manager chooses a particular distribution of the net ecosystem service benefit (ie. a range of possible outcomes), or a risk profile. The fair risk premium associated with this risky situation can be calculated as “the amount of money that leaves a decision maker equally well-off, in terms of utility,” between bearing the risk or paying the risk premium and receiving for sure the expected pay off. “The insurance value of biodiversity is then given by the change of the risk premium due to a marginal change in the level of biodiversity”, in other words “the marginal value of biodiversity in its function to reduce the risk premium of the ecosystem manager’s income risk from using ecosystem services under uncertainty”. It is a function of both the “objective” stabilizing effect of biodiversity and the “subjective” degree of ecosystem manager’s risk aversion.

Not unexpectedly, as biodiversity becomes more abundant (scarcer), its insurance value decreases (increases). The optimal level of biodiversity can then be defined as the level where the marginal cost of biodiversity equals the marginal benefits (marginal gain in mean level of ecosystem services and the change in risk premium, ie. the insurance value). From there, “the higher the degree of risk aversion, the higher the optimal level of biodiversity. This is intuitively obvious, and confirms the idea that biodiversity is being used by a risk averse ecosystem manager as a form of natural insurance<sup>47</sup>.”

## 9.6 Substituting natural insurance to financial insurance, shifting from passive moral hazard nature loss risk to active insurance valuation of biodiversity for nature's restoration

Baumgärtner [2007] further explores the ecosystem manager's decision-making under uncertainty assuming the availability of financial insurance. He reaches the following rather intuitive conclusions: the optimal level of biodiversity chosen by the ecosystem manager if financial insurance is available is lower than in a situation where none is. The higher the real costs of financial insurance, the lower the optimal fraction of coverage by financial insurance and the higher the optimal level of biodiversity. If financial insurance is overly cheap, there is no incentive to incur a cost for biodiversity to manage the ecosystem's uncertainty. By extension, if other risk-changing production factors (such as fertilizers or pesticides) influencing the level of ecosystem services are available, there is even fewer incentives. Therefore, “the availability, and exact institutional design, of financial insurance [our edit: and fertilizers or pesticides] influence the level of biodiversity protection.”

While Baumgärtner [2007]'s ecological-economic model is very powerful and can be generalized to multiple risk-changing factors with rather weak assumptions, it is framed under conditions of risk, not uncertainty. It was written when the LSS debate was raging and

<footnote n="47"><sup>47</sup>Interestingly, these results hold even if an increasing level of biodiversity causes the mean expected income to fall, the only strong assumption being that the variance of the ecosystem service decreases with an increasing level of biodiversity.</footnote>
values biodiversity as a form of natural insurance from the perspective of an “LSP cul-
tivated ecosystem” manager. The hypothesis on a knowable (in a deterministic sense)
relationship between a certain biodiversity level and an associated cost to attain it is
probably very strong, and in turn, the relationship between the expected distribution of
the ecosystem service and this cost even stronger. By contrast, the longstanding track-
record of other risk-changing production factors in mitigating yield volatility is a much
weaker assumption. This may explain why it is so challenging for an ecosystem man-
ager to actually value and “risk” the capital cost of biodiversity protection<fnref n="48" />. This issue
further compounds if we consider that multiple ecosystem services can be rendered by
biodiversity within the ecological Matryoshka dolls continuum (cultivated ecosystems /
“natural” ecosystems / biosphere).

In line with these considerations, recent empirical work by Faure and Mouysset [2025]
provides critical validation and nuance. Their study quantifies the insurance value of
semi-natural habitats<fnref n="49" /> (SNHs) — such as grasslands and hedgerows — in mitigating
pest-related yield risks in oilseed rape production in western France. They estimate this
insurance value at approximately €50/ha, demonstrating that SNHs can reduce yield
variability through natural pest control mechanisms. Importantly, their findings high-
light a substitution effect between SNHs and conventional risk-mitigating inputs like
pesticides and financial insurance. When these synthetic inputs are available and afford-
able, the optimal demand for biodiversity-based insurance decreases. This complements
Baumgärtner [2007]'s insight that biodiversity's insurance value is sensitive to both its
marginal cost and the decision-maker's risk aversion — but adds a crucial empirical layer:
the presence of alternative risk management tools significantly alters the perceived value
of biodiversity. Moreover, Faure and Mouysset [2025] demonstrate that simplified models
that omit synthetic inputs tend to overestimate the insurance value of biodiversity.

This methodological bias underscores the importance of modelling biodiversity as a green
alternative to synthetic inputs within realistic agricultural portfolios and cautions against
overly idealized assumptions. The challenge lies not only in recognizing biodiversity's
stabilizing role but also in designing institutional and economic incentives that make its
protection a rational choice for risk-averse farmers.

9.7 (Re)insurers as catalysts for biodiversity-based risk manage-
ment, the Tahoe Donner Association case study

Building on Baumgärtner’s theoretical insights and Faure and Mouysset [2025] empirical
validation, it becomes clear that biodiversity offers measurable insurance value. How-

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸The presented model does not account for timing risk in cashflows, and whether the biodiversity cost is OPEX or CAPEX, etc...</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹Another technical term for agroecological infrastructure we presented in the context of the LSS discussion.</footnote>
ever, this value is often underappreciated by farmers or ecosystem manager due to the availability of immediately effective cheaper synthetic inputs or financial insurance and the difficulty of quantifying biodiversity's risk mitigation benefits over time.

Insurers and reinsurers, with their expertise in risk modeling and pricing, should thus leverage this academic research to systematically assess the insurance value of biodiversity within managed or natural ecosystems and offer more affordable market-based insurance (accounting for the biodiversity insurance value of the ecosystem if any) and in turn incentivize reduced reliance on other risk changing production factors. By systematically assessing the insurance value of ecosystems — such as SNHs or managed forests — they could indeed help translate ecological resilience into financial incentives.

There is a recent precedent showing steps in the right direction: the Tahoe Donner Association case, as documented in the Willis Towers Watson (“WTW”) technical report, provides a pioneering example [Williams et al., 2025]. Here, insurers explicitly accounted for the wildfire risk reduction benefits of forest management by using compared historical fire analysis between areas with fire risk management “best practices” (e.g., thinning, prescribed burns) and reference areas (no such practices in place) to price a parametric<fnref n="50" /> insurance product. The results were noticeable: premium reduction: 39%, deductible reduction: 84%, estimated loss reduction: 46% in annual average losses. This was achieved through a combination of empirical fire data, modeling, and satellite-based parametric indices. The insurance product was marketed as rewarding proactive ecosystem management. We would rather see it as an illustration that a certain configuration of the ecosystem, or its ability to deliver over variable and changing conditions a certain level of ecosystem services, or more simply its ecological state/health — a point we will revisit in section 10) — can be accounted for to design relevant insurance solutions.

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰SCOR's article *Parametric Insurance: A 360° View 1*, parametric insurance is a form of insurance that provides pre-agreed payouts based on the occurrence of a triggering event, measured by an objective parameter or index — rather than on the actual loss incurred.</footnote>
# 10 A new universal agronomic framework for Regenerative Agriculture: photosynthesis, homeostasis, biodiversity, functional integrity

We encountered biodiversity at every avenue we explored in our RA academic journey: within the LSS debate (representation and functions), as part of the most ambitious version of AE (to support agrarian independence), implicitly buried in the most far-reaching representation of RA (as an antifragility wildcard to manage disturbance and disorder), and eventually with an inexorable logic as the only “nature-based” risk changing factor to manage uncertainty in (ever dynamic) ecosystems.

This unquestionably supports Duru et al. [2022] call for “biodiversity in soils, crops, and landscapes to be at the heart of agricultural practices to enhance the services provided to both farming and society.” To shift from promises to evidence, Duru et al. [2022] call for a new paradigm based on science, emphasizing the need to adopt measurable outcome indicators or robust means to assess the state of farmland along context-dependent trajectories of progress.

## 10.1 Energy, homeostasis and agricultural practices

Husson et al. [2024] may have authored a detailed piece that lays the groundwork for this new paradigm (“Référentiels et nouveaux indicateurs pour fonder une agriculture régénératrice”), which could support RA principles-based standards. To our knowledge, no other article has attempted to establish a new (agro)biodiversity-centric paradigm while so clearly articulating the link between fundamentally “regenerative” agricultural practices and the ecological processes/fluxes involved.

While the authors do not mention the scope of agricultural ecoregions captured under this framework (and a priori speak with a western Europe angle), we are inclined to think it can apply in all contexts, given its ecological generality. The framework is underpinned by three key pillars.

First, the health of all living systems — including plants from the cellular level to the tissue level and the whole plant, microorganisms, and soils — largely depends on their pH (proton) / Eh (electron) homeostasis<fnref n="51" />. Each organism has a specific optimal pH–Eh range, including pathogens and pests which thrive in narrow Eh–pH niches (theory of “left vacant niche”). Different parts of plants correspond to variable Eh–pH niches in space and time, depending on the genotype (species and variety). Soil Eh–pH conditions affect plant nutrition and pH–Eh homeostasis, while microorganisms modify the soil’s Eh–pH.

Second, all living systems need energy to regulate pH and hence absorb environmental

<footnote n="51">⁵¹Technical term for dynamic balancing or equilibrium.</footnote>
stresses (whether biotic<fnref n="52" /> or abiotic). All the energy in the system comes from photosynthesis. Plants act like solar panels that both "recharge" themselves and "recharge" the soil with electrons and protons. This occurs either through the roots (via root exudation) or through surface or directly within soil when plants biomass decomposes. Through exudation, plants modify the Eh-pH conditions of their environment to selectively support and nourish specific populations of microorganisms, thereby enabling them to maintain favorable Eh-pH conditions at the lowest possible energetic cost. Any decrease in photosynthetic production therefore leads to a reduction in the energy available for the proper functioning of the system as a whole, which strongly impacts biogeochemical cycles, plant nutrition, and also their sensitivity to pests and pathogens.

Finally, agricultural practices impact the Eh-pH conditions of soils and plants, thereby affecting the entire system's health and resilience.

## 10.2 Principles: planned biodiversity (agrobiodiversity)

The diversity of cultivated crops and associated plants at the field level shapes the soil microbiome and directly influence redox (Eh) and pH balances. Diverse cropping systems (including intercrops, cover crops, and rotations) not only maximize photosynthetic energy capture, but also support (with this energy converted to soil organic matter) biodiverse and active microbial communities Husson et al. [2024].

It helps stabilize soil structure and nutrient availability at a lower energetic cost and creates a diversity (ie. a mosaic) of micro-niches that disrupts pest and pathogen cycles, through competition and antagonism, in line with the vacant niche theory — which posits that simplified systems leave ecological niches open for pests, while diverse systems fill them with beneficial organisms. Eventually, soil biodiversity helps plants maintain their Eh-pH homeostasis, reducing their susceptibility to stress and disease. Overall, it increases the system's ability to buffer environmental stresses (ie. Baumgärtner's environmental stochasticity) [Husson et al., 2024].

### 10.2.1 Crop diversity/diversification of which leguminous (farm-level)

There has long been evidence that crop diversity/diversification increases the mean and reduces the variance of agricultural yields / farm income. Risk averse farmers typically use crop diversity as an income hedge [Baumgärtner, 2007].

In principle, long and diverse crop rotations and species mixtures are recommended. In addition to the above, they increase functional diversity in root exudates and microbial interactions and create complementary root architectures and resource use strategies. Legumes (e.g., clover, vetch, peas) are central to planned biodiversity due to their

<footnote n="52">⁵²Biotic = “living” influences such as microorganisms, symbiosis, parasitism. Abiotic = “non-living” influences such as temperature, water temperature, CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere.</footnote>
symbiotic nitrogen fixation with fungi, contribution to rhizodeposition of nitrogen and carbon-rich exudates that feed soil microbes [Husson et al., 2024].

Indeed, crop diversification has been shown to deliver positive (albeit variable) effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services. According to a global synthesis of 95 meta-analyses covering over 54,000 experiments across 85 countries, crop diversification strategies such as intercropping, cover crops, crop rotations, agroforestry, and cultivar mixtures consistently enhance ecological functions and productivity (Beillouin et al., 2021). Findings do support (Husson et al., 2023)'s paradigm (+24% increase in associated biodiversity, including beneficial insects, soil organisms, and non-crop plants, +63% improvement in pest and disease control, with cover crops and intercropping showing the strongest effects, +11% improvement in soil quality, particularly in systems using legumes and agroforestry, +14% increase in crop production, with agroforestry and intercropping leading the gains).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: Example of multiyear cropping rotation [Boston Consulting Group, 2023]</figcaption></figure>

Among these strategies, leguminous crops play a central role: in intercropping systems, legumes (e.g., faba bean, cowpea, lentils) enhance nitrogen cycling through biological fixation, reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers, and improve yields of companion cereals. In rotations, legumes contribute to soil fertility and break pest and disease cycles. As cover crops, legumes improve soil structure, increase microbial biomass, and contribute to carbon sequestration — though they may also increase short-term N₂O emissions [Beillouin et al., 2021].
10.2.2 Crop diversity/diversification of which agroforestry (farm-level)

AF is indeed highlighted by Husson et al. [2024] as a key regenerative practice: trees provide enhanced permanent cover, further root diversity, and more carbon inputs. AF systems are especially effective in restoring degraded soils and sequestering carbon. The head of strategy and development of AgroSolutions defined RA as SCA with an additional AF layering. Soloviev and Landua [2016] concur with this statement about Level Two RA farms incorporating tree-based AF: “they are significantly effective at capturing carbon. In multiple climates, AF has been shown to capture 15 to 41 metric tons of carbon per hectare annually, as opposed to the relatively low one to six metric tons of carbon per hectare annually demonstrated by level one systems like the Rodale Institute’s trials” [Rodale Institute, 2014].

Schreefel et al. [2020] also highlight the “use of perennials” within the switch from single (annuals) to multi-cropping systems “because perennials have more extensive and deeper root systems and don’t leave fields fallow in between growing seasons”.

Elevitch et al. [2018] provide a much clearer overview of AF’s merits, fully congruent with Husson et al. [2024]’s considerations on photosynthesis and energy: “multistory agroforests allow for efficient use of sunlight across different heights, increased total photosynthesis, leading to greater biomass production and root system stratification — where roots occupy different soil depths, enhancing nutrient and water uptake.”

According to Beillouin et al. [2021], agroforestry increases associated biodiversity by +61% on average, with shaded perennial systems reaching up to +86%. It boosts crop production by +35%, particularly in parkland (+47%) and alley cropping (+31%) systems. It improves soil quality by +19%, especially through enhanced soil structure and organic matter content. It enhances pest and disease control by +59%, with hedgerows showing particularly strong effects (+84%). It also strengthens water regulation by +45%, through improved infiltration and reduced runoff. Finally, it contributes to climate mitigation, increasing soil carbon stocks by +19%, thanks to perennial biomass inputs and reduced soil disturbance.

We provide an overview of key RA principles in the below diagram, borrowed from Boston Consulting Group [2023]. We will get back to implementation levels in section 12.1.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13: Regenerative agriculture key principles adapted from [Boston Consulting Group, 2023]</figcaption></figure>

### 10.2.3 Livestock integration (farm-level and/or system-level)

Livestock integration also constitutes a relevant dimension of agrobiodiversity in the context of Husson et al. [2024], although it tends to be less of an endogenous choice within farmers’ decision-making autonomy than the previously mentioned practices. The wider agrosystem defines the options available to farmers.

It also contributes to more balanced soil oxidation-reduction (Eh) conditions and helps maintain a soil environment that supports plant health and suppresses pathogens. Through enhanced microbial activity and organic matter cycling, livestock systems can contribute to stable carbon pools in the soil. Ruminants especially transform organic matter in their rumen, producing manure rich in anaerobic microbial taxa. This manure accelerates the decomposition and humification of organic matter. This contributes to a more diverse and functionally resilient soil microbiome, especially under reduced-oxygen (microoxic) conditions, and supports the formation of stable soil aggregates and stable soil structure [Husson et al., 2024].

### 10.2.4 Semi-natural habitats (farm-level and/or landscape-level)

We already discussed SNH in the context of the insurance value of biodiversity. We also discussed “agroecological infrastructures” in the context of the LSS debate. For the purposes of this section, we will treat these two concepts as largely overlapping — acknowledging that this may be something of an oversimplification from a pure ecological standpoint.
Although Husson et al. [2024] do not mention explicitly SNH or agroecological infrastruc-
tures as part of their framework, they highlight the importance of landscape-level biodi-
versity (which to some extent also overlaps the two previous notions) for both biological
regulation (through the role of “landscape mosaics”) and for managing biogeochemical
flows (via ecological infrastructures). Even where the most extensive monocultures are
practiced, landscape diversification, combined with habitat structures between fields, can
have significant positive impacts on many services provided by agricultural biodiversity,
notably hydrological and pest regulation [DeClerck et al., 2023]. And yet, a weakness of
the RA concept is that it fails to address larger scales (landscape and regional) despite
the fact that several processes, particularly for maintaining biodiversity, are operating at
these larger scales. Biodiversity must be addressed at the landscape and regional scales,
not just at the farm level. Small field sizes, field margins, and structural heterogeneity
are emphasized as key to supporting biodiversity [European Academies’ Science Advi-
sory Council (EASAC), 2022]. We will thus assume all forms of semi-natural habitats,
agroecological infrastructures or landscape biodiversity — whether man-made or result-
ing from natural regeneration<fnref n="53" /> — should be an integral part of a robust framework
for nature-positive RA insurance and reinsurance solutions, as we shall see below. While
these elements may sometimes lie beyond the agency of individual farmers, they are often
shaped by legacy or absent landscape-level planning.

Indeed, Mohamed et al. [2022] have “found that 20–25% of relatively diverse semi-natural habitat in each km² of land area is needed to maintain a minimum level of select Nature’s Contributions to People<fnref n="54" /> (‘NCP’)” (of which pollination, pest and disease control, water quality, soil protection, natural hazards regulations are all very relevant<fnref n="55" /> to a global reinsurer, beyond RA), albeit (as we now know for ecosystems) “exact area, quality and configuration required is dependent on local context, and may differ based on landscape types and for individual NCP.” As a baseline, “more than 60% of human-modified lands have less than 20% semi-natural habitat per km² and thus require immediate attention to regenerate functional integrity.” The European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (“EASAC”) recommends coordinated management across farms, restoration of semi-natural habitats, and maintaining at least 10–20% of farmland as high-diversity landscape features [European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), 2022].

<footnote n="53">⁵³The capacity of ecosystems to recover spontaneously after the cessation of degradation via the natural recolonisation by plants and animals.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴As defined by IPBES, NCP extend the notion of ES to all the contributions — positive or negative — of nature to people’s quality of life. It includes non-material, relational, and culturally specific values and emphasizes pluralistic worldviews, including Indigenous and local knowledge systems. It is in principle more inclusive and holistic (and less anthropocentric), acknowledging diverse ways people relate to and value nature. As we have extensively explored the potential conflicting worldviews around RA, this new notion (at this point in the thesis neither alters the arguments developed so far nor those that follow).</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵Whether these functions are framed as ecosystem services or NCPs is, at this stage, largely a matter of terminology and does not materially affect the substance of the argument. Of note is that ecosystem service are an anthropocentric construct for “useful” ecological processes, but the notion of disservices is not new [Lévêque, 2023].</footnote>
The question of functional integrity — defined as an ecosystem’s capacity to contribute to biosphere processes and to produce NCP — and scale in Mohamed et al. [2022] helps us further refine our previous question on the targeted system-level outcome in section 9. Indeed, the authors shed light on the multi-scale interactions between an ecosystem and other ecosystems nested in the biosphere. This is very relevant from the perspective of a global (re)insurer for two reasons at least. First, “at a global scale, land use conversion and degradation affect Earth system functions and reduce biosphere capacity to mitigate climate change, weather, and hydrological flows.” Second, the extent of NCP “can be differentiated by the scale at which they are provided and the proximity of the beneficiaries.” Indeed, functional integrity is relevant as much at the biosphere level as at the basin, landscape, farm, field, or even neighborhood scale in urban settings.”

The requirement to zoom in and out of the farm, field and landscape level fits naturally with the observation point of (re)insurers. The need to leverage (constantly evolving) ecological knowledge about other ecosystems or even the biosphere relevant to the ecosystem of interest might well be a requirement for a holistically nature-positive approach to insurance solutions. The type of meta-analysis work conducted (based on systematic ecosystems functional integrity variables but at a biosphere level) by Mohamed et al. [2022] should systematically inform insurers or reinsurers as to the best expectable ecological regeneration outcomes for the ecosystem of interest. In addition, “well-configured habitat can significantly reduce the frequency and risk of natural hazards such as shallow landslides, floods, and soil erosion,” a point of utmost importance for an insurer providing flooding coverage to assets extending beyond agriculture (industrial, logistics, factories, energy, mining, etc...).

## 10.3 Regeneration dynamics: non-linearity and adaptive management

It flows from the understanding of above principles that they do not warrant prescriptive criteria as to how they should be implemented. They can be in many ways depending on the context.

Indeed, the variability in the relationships between the various dimensions of biodiversity and ecosystem services does not allow for standardized recommendations, but only for the formulation of the above guiding principles. The generalization of highly context-specific research findings or empirical observations is therefore inappropriate and unfortunately common [Husson et al., 2024]. At the landscape level, the effects of SNH fragmentation are “very local, context dependent, and can vary across taxa or the function in question” [Mohamed et al., 2022], leading to the same conclusion.

There are also more fundamental reasons to refraining from going beyond principles. In essence, further to changes in planned biodiversity, soil (and presumably NCP/ES