Furthermore, it has the potential to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture and, when adopted in full, could even make European farming carbon negative.
These are the claims being made in a new report by the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA).
The EARA looked at a range of European farms adopting several regenerative practices and removing a significant portion of farm-level inputs, such as feeds, fertilisers and pesticides.
The farms were, according to EARA, more productive in terms of input efficiency, ecosystem services and biodiversity than farms using traditional agriculture (benchmarked against the average productivity of an existing farmer using the same crop or livestock).
The organisation has developed a new benchmark for judging the productivity of regenerative agriculture: Regenerating Full Productivity (RFP).
What is Regenerating Full Productivity?
RFP, which was developed by farmers, agronomists and researchers, judges success mainly on economic and ecological indicators. It measures biophysical, ecological and (indirectly) social performance as well as yields.
It has a strong focus on photosynthesis and posits that optimising it can drive agricultural productivity.
Soil cover and ecological complexity are also central to RFP. Soil cover, according to the report, moderates temperatures, improves water retention and reduces erosion, while ecological complexity optimises nutrient cycling and reduces the need for external inputs.
Finally, the benchmark utilises technology, such as satellites, to keep data on the other factors and ensure farmers know what’s going on with their crops.
Regenerative or Greenwashed? A Response to McKinsey’s Vision for Farming
Does regenerative agriculture provide greater productivity?
After establishing a framework, the EARA put it to the test, exploring productivity in 14 European countries: Italy, Germany, Greece, Finland, Estonia, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, France, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and the Netherlands.
All countries assessed received a higher RFP score than the average farm. This score averaged out at 32%; the greatest was in Hungary, with 52.1%, the lowest being Estonia with 13.7%.
The scores were the result of averaging out the responses for each involved farmer for the country in question, on variables such as fuel use, soil cover, and photosynthetic activity.
For example, farms involved in the programme achieved 24% higher photosynthesis than neighbouring farms, 23% higher soil cover and 17% higher plant diversity.
While yields were 2% lower, the farms used on average 61% less synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and 76% fewer pesticides per hectare.
Farmers also used feed from exclusively within their bioregions, rather than importing extensively.
What could regenerative agriculture’s impact be on the climate?
While in many cases, regenerative agriculture has had a holistic approach to the environment, its impact on greenhouse gas emissions is still an integral part of its appeal.
In this case, it’s no different. According to the study, if even 50% of the farms in Europe adopted regenerative agriculture, it could offset European agricultural emissions. If all did so, it could make agriculture carbon negative by three times.
