A Genealogy of Sustainable Agriculture Narratives

Agriculture and Human Values
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10444-4
A genealogy of sustainable agriculture narratives: implications for the

transformative potential of regenerative agriculture
Anja Bless1 · Federico Davila1 · Roel Plant1
Accepted: 27 February 2023

© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
The agri-food system is facing a range of social-ecological threats, many of which are caused and amplified by industrial
agriculture. In response, numerous sustainable agriculture narratives have emerged, proposing solutions to the challenges
facing the agri-food system. One such narrative that has recently risen to prominence is regenerative agriculture. However,
the drivers for the rapid emergence of regenerative agriculture are not well understood. Furthermore, its transformative
potential for supporting a more sustainable agri-food system is underexplored. Through a genealogical analysis of four
prominent sustainable agriculture narratives; organic agriculture, conservation agriculture, sustainable intensification, and
agroecology; we consider how regenerative agriculture’s growing momentum can be contextualised within existing narra-
tives and explore the implications this might have for its transformative potential. This analysis reveals that the genealo-
gies of these sustainable agriculture narratives have led to a number of contestations and complementarities which have
coalesced to drive the emergence of regenerative agriculture. We also find that, in contrast to agroecology, regenerative
agriculture shares with other Global North narratives a limited scope for offering transformative pathways for agricultural
production. This is largely due to their inadequate consideration of power and equity issues in the agri-food system. We
argue that regenerative agriculture therefore risks inhibiting deeper agri-food system transformations that address both
social and ecological challenges and is not the unifying sustainable agriculture narrative it claims to be. Nonetheless,
regenerative agriculture could contribute towards a broader plurality of sustainable agriculture narratives that collectively
might enable a transformation to a more sustainable, diverse, and just agri-food system.
Keywords Sustainable agriculture · Transformation · Regenerative agriculture · Agroecology · Sustainable

intensification · Organic agriculture · Conservation agriculture
Introduction into the high-risk zone (Steffen et al. 2015). Corporate power
and influence in global food governance (Clapp 2021), and
The global agri-food system is facing serious threats. An the ongoing marginalisation of smallholder farmers and
estimated 20–40% of the world’s land is degraded, affecting indigenous peoples and knowledges are also embedding
nearly half of the world’s population. Agriculture is respon- social injustice throughout the agri-food system (Jarosz
sible for 80% of deforestation and 70% of freshwater use 2014). For several decades, scholars have highlighted how
globally, and is the biggest driver of terrestrial biodiversity the dominance of industrial agriculture narratives, embed-
loss (UNCCD 2022). Agriculture, forestry, and land use ded in extractivist and productivist ideas and discourse
change contribute to 23% of global greenhouse gas emis- (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre 2020), are perpetuating these
sions (IPCC 2019), and current agricultural practices are agri-food system challenges (Friedmann and McMichael
pushing the planetary boundary of biogeochemical flows 1989; Bernstein 2016). Industrial agriculture narratives sup-
port an agri-food system where the farm is treated like a fac-
tory (Horrigan et al. 2002), and food is commoditised and
produced at a mass scale (McKenzie and Williams 2015).
Anja Bless
[email protected] To address these challenges, and tackle the dominance
of industrial agriculture, there has been a call to transform
1
University of Technology Sydney (Institute for Sustainable the agri-food system to one that is more sustainable and just
Futures), Sydney (NSW), Australia
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A. Bless et al.
(FAO 2021). This sustainable agri-food system transforma- role of RA in achieving the necessary transformations of
tion requires structural and systemic changes to patterns of the agri-food system to address its social and environmental
consumption and production (El Bilali 2019) and the mind- challenges.
sets and priorities of actors (Seymour and Connelly 2022). In this paper we take a genealogical approach (McMi-
As part of this transformation push, industrial agriculture chael 2009; Walker and Cooper 2011) to ask, (1) how RA
has been challenged by different sustainable agriculture nar- can be contextualised within the lineages of four other
ratives that are more focused on environmental and social prominent sustainable agriculture narratives, and (2) what
outcomes (Janker et al. 2018). These narratives have exten- these genealogies indicate about how RA might contribute
sive histories with different supporters and drivers, and to, or inhibit, a sustainable agri-food system transforma-
include agroecology, natural farming, permaculture, biody- tion. To do this, we first provide a summary of RA’s rise to
namic farming, organic farming, conservation agriculture, prominence, before mapping the genealogies of the sustain-
carbon farming, climate-smart agriculture, low external able agriculture narratives; organic agriculture (OA), con-
input agriculture, circular agriculture, biological farming, servation agriculture (CA), sustainable intensification (SI),
ecological intensification, and sustainable intensification, and agroecology (AE); to contextualise RA and consider its
among others (Oberč and Arroyo Schnell 2020). Despite transformative potential using a transformation approaches
their ever-increasing number and often decades long lega- framework by Scoones et al. (2020).
cies, no sustainable agriculture narrative has been capable We argue that RA has coalesced through the limitations
of fully challenging the dominance of industrial agriculture. facing the sustainable agriculture narratives analysed. High-
Nevertheless, more sustainable agriculture narratives con- lighting how sustainable agriculture narratives have been
tinue to emerge, aiming to accelerate action towards an agri- dominated by Global North and corporate actors, diluting
food system transformation (Sumberg and Giller 2022). The their ability to drive transformation in the agri-food sys-
latest of these narratives, marked by a notably rapid rise in tem and significantly challenge industrial agriculture. The
prominence, is regenerative agriculture (RA). exception to this is AE, which is instead restricted in its
Since around 2015, RA has gained increasing exposure in transformative potential due to the unequal power dynamics
both academic circles and general media as a more sustain- of the agri-food system that oppress Global South and small-
able way of growing food and fibre (Newton et al. 2020). scale actors. Within this context, we argue that RA is at risk
It has been promoted by non-government organisations of falling into a similar trap that befell OA, SI, and CA,
(WWF 2020; The Nature Conservancy 2021), governments where the predominant actors in the narrative become cor-
(Department of Primary Industries and Regional Develop- porations and the Global North institutions they dominate
ment 2020), celebrities (Kiss the Ground Movie/Big Pic- (Clapp 2021). Such a trajectory would reduce the transfor-
ture Ranch 2022), farming organisations (National Farmers mative potential of the RA narrative and risks exacerbat-
Union 2021), international institutions (UNCCD 2022), and ing issues of injustice and inequity in the agri-food system.
agri-food corporations (Soloviev 2020). However, concerns Furthermore, RA’s rapid rise to prominence risks distracting
have been raised about the prominent role of these corpo- agri-food system actors from the transformative potential
rations in promoting RA (Wozniacka 2019; Gordon et al. of more established narratives, such as AE. While RA may
2023), the scientific evidence that supports its sustainability add further diversity to a plurality of sustainable agriculture
claims (Giller et al. 2021), its lack of acknowledgement of narratives and is demonstrably attracting powerful agri-food
indigenous peoples and knowledges, and the potential risk system actors, it is by no means the unifying narrative that it
RA poses in sidelining existing sustainable agriculture nar- has been claimed to be, nor the catch-all solution to sustain-
ratives that have less powerful backers (Fassler 2021). able agri-food system transformation.
While the rise of RA has been described and the structure
of its discourse unpacked (Gordon et al. 2021), there is a gap
in the current literature in terms of contextualising its rapid Background: the rise of regenerative
emergence. Furthermore, there has been limited question- agriculture
ing of the extent of RA’s transformative potential for the
agri-food system. It has been described as potentially an The term ‘regenerative agriculture’ was coined in 1979 by
‘umbrella’ term which could unite existing sustainable agri- Medard Gabel, though the terms were already being used
culture narratives (Seymour and Connelly 2022), however in conjunction through the 1970s (Giller et al. 2021) as part
this notion has not been considered in sufficient depth. Situ- of broader ‘regenerative’ discourses which had emerged
ating RA alongside other sustainable agriculture narratives through design and architecture (Gordon et al. 2021). The
and their attempts to challenge the dominance of industrial first definition of RA was by Robert Rodale and Richard
agriculture is therefore an important task to anticipate the Harwood of the Rodale Research Centre as being a farming
13
A genealogy of sustainable agriculture narratives: implications for the transformative potential of regenerative…
practice that was ‘beyond organic’ (Giller et al. 2021). The Method and conceptual approach:
first peer-reviewed scholarly mention of RA was in 1986, genealogical narrative analysis and
where it was linked closely with both organic and low- transformation pathways
external input agriculture (Francis et al. 1986). However, the
term remained relatively fringe until the mid-2010’s where This paper applies a genealogical approach to analyse sus-
it has seen a demonstrable rise in publicity and popularity. tainable agriculture narratives, exploring where they have
News mentions of RA have doubled every year since 2015, descended from, how they have changed and morphed over
and from a total of seven academic publications on RA time, their current state, and their transformative potential
between 1986 and 2016, 52 were published between 2016 using Scoones et al.’s (2020) framework (see Fig. 1). The
and 2020 (Giller et al. 2021). The trailer for a documen- narratives chosen for analysis, OA, CA, SI, and AE were
tary featuring Hollywood A-listers on RA, Kiss the Ground, selected both for their relative prominence in terms of sus-
currently has over 9.5 million views on YouTube (Kiss the tainable agriculture (Schreefel et al. 2020; Kassam and Kas-
Ground Movie/Big Picture Ranch 2022), and a number of sam 2020) and their relationship to RA. We have used the
RA organisations have been established such as Regenera- term ‘narrative’ to describe them, rather than sustainable
tion International (Soloviev and Landua 2016). The term is agriculture practices or movements, as narratives play an
also being increasingly used by various governments and important overarching role in bringing separate parts of a
agri-food corporations in their sustainable agriculture pro- phenomenon, such as its activities or actors, into a cohesive
grams and policies (O’Donoghue et al. 2022). whole (Kaplan 2016). Narratives give meaning and create
While its definition remains in dispute, RA is now gener- discursive frames (Béné et al. 2019) through which to unite
ally understood either as practices such as minimising soil the movements, principles, and practices of sustainable
disturbance, integrating livestock, maximising soil cover, agriculture and capture key events and actors (Anderson
rotational grazing, and lowering external inputs (Newton et and Rivera-Ferre 2020). Narratives also play an important
al. 2020). Or, as principles that centre around going ‘beyond role in sustainability transformations. They function as jus-
sustainability’ (Gibbons 2020) to rejuvenate landscapes tification for particular interventions, providing idealised
and farms through enhancing ecosystem processes such as approaches for navigating systems towards sustainability
water, nutrient, and carbon cycles. Occasionally, definitions and creating pathways for change (Luederitz et al. 2017).
also include social elements such as restoring the health of There has been an abundance of research on agri-food
communities and farmers (Newton et al. 2020). system narratives. This research commonly frames these
Recent scholarship has started to explore RA’s origins narratives in terms of binaries such as strong and weak,
and definitions (Soloviev and Landua 2016; Newton et al. open and closed (Bell and Bellon 2021), conventional and
2020; Schreefel et al. 2020; Fenster et al. 2021; Giller et alternative (Beus and Dunlap 1990), security and sover-
al. 2021; Gordon et al. 2021; O’Donoghue et al. 2022), eignty (Jarosz 2014), mechanical and ecological (Gosnell
as well as the motivations of regenerative practitioners at 2021), industrial and agrarian (Wilson 2007), or extractive
the local scale (Gosnell 2021; Dipu et al. 2022). Regard- and regenerative (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre 2020). While
ing RA’s transformative potential, Loring (2022) considers these binaries can be useful for categorising narratives, they
pathways to a regenerative agri-food system which is flex- do not always capture the different elements that make up
ible and diverse with a focus on conserving environmental a narrative. Nor do they elicit which actors are invoking
cycles. In addition, Seymour & Connelly (2022) emphasise the narrative, in what context, and for what purpose. Only
the more-than-human ethic of care in RA as central to its sometimes are these narrative analyses considered in the
transformative potential. However, little research has been context of agri-food system transformation (Jarosz 2014;
conducted on why RA has risen so quickly to prominence, Anderson and Rivera-Ferre 2020; Bell and Bellon 2021).
its place among other agriculture narratives, the broader Distilling the nuances of narratives beyond binary compari-
social-ecological drivers of its rise, and what these factors sons is therefore important for understanding where emerg-
might mean for its role in agri-food system transformation. ing narratives, like RA, may be headed.
To help address these gaps, we will explore in this paper the In addition, while there is ample historical analysis that
descendance of RA amongst other sustainable agriculture has been conducted on sustainable agriculture narratives
narratives to help shed further light on its rise to prominence separately, less has been done to critically consider their
and the potential implications of these findings for its trans- complementarities and conflicts directly or to contextualise
formative potential. their emergence and evolution in relation to external socio-
political and environmental factors. Likewise, there is a lack
of research inquiring into the relationship of these narratives
13
A. Bless et al.
with RA and how their genealogies might help explain the turning points, and their conflicts to better situate them in
rapid emergence in prominence of RA. the present.
To help address these gaps in the literature on sustainable To explore what the findings from this genealogical
agriculture narratives, we apply a genealogical approach analysis might tell us about the transformative potential of
to consider and compare OA, CA, SI, and AE to help con- these sustainable agriculture narratives, and therefore that of
textualise the RA narrative. Our approach draws from the RA, we use Scoones et al.’s (2020) transformation pathways
Foucauldian genealogical method and the notion of writing framework. Transformations involve fundamental changes
a ‘history of the present’ (Garland 2014), whereby a criti- in the structural, functional, relational, and cognitive aspects
cal lens – one that seeks to uncover and challenge power of a system, leading to new interactions and behaviours
structures – is applied to the past to question the narratives (Patterson et al. 2017). Scoones et al.’s (2020) framework
of the now (Michael 1982). A genealogy is an interpretiv- is a useful tool in synthesising the different pathways for
ist approach to narrative analysis which aims to uncover transformation and the social, cultural, and political factors
where the narrative has come from, and the triggers (social, involved (Billi et al. 2022). It provides for fruitful com-
political, economic, or ecological) that caused it to emerge. parison between different transformation approaches and
It describes the narrative’s pathway of evolution to the the actors, relationships, and socio-technical mechanisms
present, which is not necessarily linear and can adapt and within them, as well as how these approaches interact with
change in relation to external factors (Kearins and Hooper one another (Ely et al. 2021).
2002). A genealogical approach is not concerned with Scoones et al.’s (2020) framework (see Fig. 1) posits
uncovering essential, empirical truths (Bastalich 2009), and three distinct but complementary approaches to sustainabil-
instead acknowledges that narratives come from somewhere ity transformations and the social processes that generate
and are going somewhere, but the path is not always straight transformative change: structural, systemic, and enabling
forward or clear (Foucault 1977). A visual representation approaches. Structural approaches focus on changes to poli-
of the genealogical method is given in Fig. 1. Genealo- tics, economy, and society – calling for an overhaul of the
gies have been used to understand narratives in economics ideological foundations of these structures and fundamental
(Dean 1992), environmental law (De Lucia 2015), urbanism changes to how production and consumption is governed,
(Danneels et al. 2020), security studies (Walker and Cooper organised, and practiced. Systemic approaches instead
2011), and development (Ziai 2015) and have helped schol- concentrate on specific elements of a system that can be
ars to highlight the triggers and lineages of narratives, their leveraged to trigger change. They are often targeted at spe-
cific institutions, technologies, and actors to steer systems
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework utilising a genealogical method (Garland 2014) and approaches to transformation (Scoones et al. 2020)
13
towards desired goals. Finally, enabling approaches high- However, OA remained relatively niche during the decades
light the role of agency in transformations, emphasising the of war and post-war food shortages, limiting its influence on
social attributes that empower individuals and communities the increasing industrialisation of agriculture. That was until
to take action and build capacity. These approaches, while the 1960s, when OA became popularised through associa-
distinct, can overlap and complement one another. However, tion with the environment and counter-cultural movements,
each also has its own drawbacks and challenges as will be riding the wave of concern regarding chemical inputs in
examined in our application of this framework to consider agriculture as a result of Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring
the transformative potential of the sustainable agriculture (Lockeretz 2007).
narratives explored in this analysis. As it grew, a notable aspect of OA was its institution-
alisation through regulatory and organisational systems. A
series of scandals regarding false claims around organic
Genealogies of sustainable agriculture produce led to the development of standards and certifica-
narratives tions created by organic organisations such as the Soil Asso-
ciation to provide consumer certainty (Schmid 2007). This
Organic agriculture institutionalisation of the OA narrative continued with the
establishment of the International Federation of Organic
Of the sustainable agriculture narratives explored here, OA Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in Europe in 1972. Its
has one of the longest lineages and is arguably the most key role being to consolidate and oversee organic certifica-
globally prominent and well-known. However, the degree tion schemes (Lockeretz 2007). The shift in focus of the OA
to which OA has challenged versus conformed to the char- narrative away from its original principles focus towards
acteristics of industrial agriculture has changed over time. A more practice-focussed standards and definitions formed a
radical narrative in its inception, OA has increasingly moved phase which is now labelled ‘Organic 2.0’ (Arbenz et al.
towards a commercialised and conventional approach to 2017). This was marked by increasing government involve-
food and fibre production which resonates with an industrial ment in standard setting, which acknowledged that OA
agriculture narrative. is intended to be a “holistic production management sys-
Emerging in inter-war Europe and the US, OA was tem”, but largely treats it as “minimising the use of external
founded on ideals of agrarianism in response to the mecha- inputs, [and] avoiding the use of synthetic fertilisers and
nisation of agriculture and the urbanisation of the rural pesticides” (United Nations 1999). This exclusion-oriented
populace (Vogt 2007). These mechanisation processes and understanding of OA has been further exacerbated by con-
social transformations led to new human-food relations, sumer concerns around food safety, leading to market-led
and the de-ruralisation of European and North American changes to the organic standards (Reed and Holt 2006) such
society drove the intensification and commercialisation of as the banning of genetically-modified organisms in organic
agricultural production (Kaplan 2016). This was supported produce (Halberg et al. 2006).
by the discovery of the Haber-Bosch process and advances By the 1980s, the number of Global North consumers
in chemical manufacturing through World War I which demanding organic produce began to outstrip the supply
allowed the production of synthetic nitrogen (Paull 2009). available from small-scale farms, food co-ops, and health
Scientific advances were also building an enhanced under- food stores. Mainstream supermarkets began stocking
standing of soil biology and the role of micro-organisms in organic produce (Aschemann et al. 2007), and to help fill
soil health. This notion of soil being ‘alive’ and concerns the supply gap the Global South quickly became the main
around soil health spurred by widespread land degrada- export market for organic produce to European and North
tion due to industrial agriculture, as well as the principles American consumers (Parrott et al. 2006). In 2019, 88% of
of biodynamic agriculture which views the farm as a living organic retail sales were in North America and Europe while
system, would become the foundations of the OA narrative 25% of organic agricultural land was located in the Global
(Vogt 2007). In coining ‘organic agriculture’ in 1940, UK- South (53% if excluding Oceania) (Schlatter et al. 2021).
based Lord Northbourne argued for a form of agriculture The trade networks of OA began to increasingly reflect
which did not rely on external inputs or treat the land as those of industrial agriculture, with the Global South pro-
an inanimate resource to be exploited, instead he states that ducing for the wants and needs of the Global North but with
“the farm itself must have a biological completeness; it must little for their own domestic markets (Halberg et al. 2006).
be a living entity, it must be a unit which has within itself a Continuing into the 1990s, organic farms across the world
balanced organic life” (Northbourne 2003, p. 58). The OA grew larger in scale, becoming increasingly monocultural in
narrative therefore began with a principles-based focus on their produce, and relying on a growing amount of (organic)
supporting soil processes and a holistic view of the farm. chemical inputs (Guthman 2004). Further mirroring the
13
A. Bless et al.
characteristics of industrial agriculture, organic supply farming without tillage, marking a significant transforma-
chains became increasingly controlled by large agri-food tion in agricultural practices (Triplett and Dick 2008).
corporations (Lockie et al. 2006). Concerns were raised that The increased technological intensity of agriculture
many organic farmers were no longer ‘in it for the right rea- through no-till would become the bedrock from which some
sons’, with organic and non-organic produce being grown in of the world’s most powerful agri-food corporations grew.
adjacent fields (Guthman 2019), and farms no longer being The first successful experiment demonstrating the applica-
treated, like a ‘living entity’, as Northbourne put it. tion of no-till techniques was recorded in 1951 by farmers
In reaction to this trend of ‘conventionalisation’ under from Dow Chemical Co. (Derpsch 1998). Dow Chemical
Organic 2.0 (Darnhofer et al. 2010) and the gradual embed- has proceeded to become one of the world’s largest agri-
ding of OA as a market niche within industrial agriculture, cultural input firms. Dow’s recent merger with Dupont in
IFOAM has recently proposed a move to ‘Organic 3.0’ 2015 created Corteva Agriscience, one of four conglomer-
(Arbenz et al. 2017). This represents a desire to return to ates which jointly control over 70% of the global pesticide
the holistic and ecologically oriented principles on which market (Clapp 2021). Similarly, John Deere worked with
the narrative was founded. There is also a call for Organic farmers in 1953 to test a drill that could plant into untilled
3.0 to include notions of food justice, addressing issues of soil (Triplett and Dick 2008). John Deere is a global leader
inequity in the OA supply chain, and having a focus beyond in agricultural equipment, with a 20% market share (Chien
the farm-gate to rural communities and social wellbeing. 2021). This early involvement of agri-food corporations in
OA has cemented itself as a distinct market niche, one that the genealogy of CA is another point of difference from the
has further ingrained, rather than significantly challenged, OA narrative.
the power dynamics of industrial agriculture and the domi- Demonstration farms of no-till agriculture began to crop
nation of corporate and Global North actors. Organic 3.0 up across the US through the 1960s, and research on mini-
represents a narrative shift against this trend, and in doing so mum and no-till production was also undertaken in the UK
it is seeking a means of distinguishing itself from Organic and Europe (Derpsch 1998). Interest in no-till agriculture
2.0. Adopting the RA narrative seems to present that oppor- grew in Brazil as wealthy farmers brought the techniques
tunity. The original coiner of the term ‘RA’ and prominent from the US to stave off the economic and environmental
organic organisation, the Rodale Institute, has retrofitted impacts being caused by industrial scale tilling (Kassam
the RA narrative within their ‘regenerative organic agri- et al. 2009). No-till spread further through Latin America
culture’ alliance and certification standard (Rodale Institute to Argentina and Chile (Derpsch 1998), as global concern
2018). ‘Regenerative organic’ is increasingly being used as about soil degradation heightened, reflected in the publica-
a means to distinguish between conventionalised OA, or tion of the World Soil Charter by the FAO in 1982 (Kassam
Organic 2.0, and OA which is more aligned to the narrative et al. 2014). No-till agriculture became further institution-
shift presented by Organic 3.0 (Cabral and Sumberg 2022; alised in 1985 through new farm laws introduced by the US
Gordon et al. 2023). government which recognised the role of no-tillage in meet-
ing soil conservation requirements and the establishment
Conservation agriculture of the Federation of American No-tillage Associations for
Sustainable Agriculture in 1992 (Derpsch 1998).
CA descended from similar concerns as OA regarding soil To acknowledge farming systems with less, but not no-
health and land degradation. However, rather than calling tillage, the terminology broadened to ‘conservation tillage’
for a return to more traditional, ecologically derived meth- through the 1990s. Soon after, the term became ‘conserva-
ods as was the case for organic, CA instead drove the pro- tion agriculture’ and was officially adopted by the FAO in
motion of new technologies as the solution. A key trigger 2001 (Kassam et al. 2009). The FAO then established the
point for CA was the Dust Bowl Crisis of the 1930s, where now widespread definition of CA as being based on three
traditional tilling practices implemented at an industrial principles: minimum mechanical soil disturbance, perma-
scale had caused widespread soil loss and land degradation nent soil cover, and species diversification (FAO 2017).
across the US and Australia (Giller et al. 2015). Calls were Bolstered by support from governments and food gover-
made for a technological solution, evolving beyond tradi- nance organisations, and the concerns around land degrada-
tional tilling practices to address the impacts of soil erosion tion raised in the UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
(Vogt 2007). These technologies came in the 1940s with CA began to spread further across Latin America, Oceania,
the invention of 2,4-D, a broadleaf weed killer (Derpsch East Asia, North America, and Europe (Kassam et al. 2014).
1998), and direct drilling technology (Kassam et al. 2019). This was also supported by the development and increased
These technologies opened up the possibility of large-scale availability of herbicide-resistant genetically modified
(GM) crops in the 1990s (Giller et al. 2015), once again
13
demonstrating the ongoing role of agri-food corporations in Sustainable intensification

CA.
It is estimated that CA is being practiced on 12.5% of Another technology-oriented sustainable agriculture narra-
global cropland, and in some regions, such as in Australia, tive is SI. However, rather than being triggered by concerns
adoption rates are as high as 90% (Kassam et al. 2019). This regarding land and soil degradation, as with CA, SI was
broadscale uptake is also potentially explained by varied spurred by issues of food insecurity. While the Green Revo-
interpretations of the principles of CA, with some viewing lution succeeded in producing more food than humanity had
it as resource conserving and low-input agriculture, while ever grown before, the FAO’s World Food Summit in 1996
others understand it to mean highly industrial, GM crop concluded that a new round of intensification of agriculture
based agriculture (Giller et al. 2015). This latter interpreta- was needed to adequately feed the world (Constance and
tion has been bolstered by critics who argue that CA, far Moseley 2018). Food governance actors at this time were
from being more sustainable, is further embedding negative also increasingly focussed on the notion of sustainability,
social impacts for small-holder farmers due to its reliance following the publication of the Bruntland Report by the
on chemical inputs and heavy machinery. The power imbal- UN in 1987 and its concept of ‘sustainable development’
ances between food producers and the corporate actors who (Weltin et al. 2018). A compromise was therefore sought
own or provide equipment and inputs for CA perpetuate between improving the sustainability outcomes of agricul-
socio-economic inequalities in agri-food systems (Westen- ture whilst enhancing productivity (Constance and Moseley
gen et al. 2018). They argue it is further empowering cor- 2018).
porate dominance and exacerbating impacts from chemical The term ‘sustainable intensification’ was coined by
pollution (Whitfield et al. 2015). Pretty (1997), who was researching ways to increase the
On the other hand, advocates point to the benefits mini- productivity of smallholder agriculture in African countries.
mising soil disturbance can have for reducing soil carbon The term remained fairly unused through the early 2000s,
loss, which could have significant benefits for climate and largely then only in relation to enhancing agricultural
change mitigation (Kassam et al. 2009). The prominent productivity in Africa (InterAcademy Council 2004). In
contribution that agriculture makes to global greenhouse 2006, the World Bank provided a definition for SI as a com-
gas emissions and its vulnerability to climate variability bination of practices such as integrated pest management,
has led to increasing scrutiny of its role in mitigating and conservation farming, low external input and sustainable
adapting to climate change (IPCC 2019). While discussion agriculture, OA, precision agriculture, and diversification
regarding the role of agriculture in climate action has been (Constance and Moseley 2018). The term ‘SI’ was there-
ongoing for several decades, it seems only in the build-up fore situated in the development field as a general term to
to COP21 in Paris in 2015 that the potential for soil carbon describe sustainable agricultural practices that also support
sequestration to mitigate climate change came into focus, the productivist paradigm of increasing food production
emblemised with the launch of the 4 per 1000 Initiative – (Loos et al. 2014).
Soils for Food Security and Climate (Soussana et al. 2019). However, this broad understanding of SI and its rela-
The notion of minimising soil disturbance, maintaining soil tive lack of prominence changed significantly in light of
cover and maximising soil carbon is also common in defini- the global food price crisis in 2007/8 (Godfray 2015). As
tions of RA. However, unlike CA which is largely focussed prices of maize tripled, wheat increased by 127 per cent
on cropping operations (Giller et al. 2015), RA also inte- and rice by 170 per cent, an estimated additional 40 mil-
grates mixed operations and livestock farming. Potentially lion people were pushed into hunger (Mittal 2009). In reac-
making RA a more inclusive narrative when it comes to tion to concerns regarding food security, the World Trade
promoting soil health and carbon sequestration. As interest Organisation’s Doha Round on Agreement on Agriculture
from carbon finance markets and climate governance actors began to focus in on SI in light of increasing food short-
in the potential for farming systems to sequester carbon and ages (Cardwell and Smith 2013). The Royal Society in the
establish carbon offsets grows, this may explain the increas- UK published a report advocating for SI, which it defined
ing focus on the RA narrative (Gewin 2021) in place of CA. as “global agriculture in which yields are increased without
Notably, RA’s sudden rise in prominence occurred in the adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation
same year as the launch of the 4 per 1000 Initiative. There of more land” (2009, p. ix). The FAO’s High-Level Expert
is also an emphasis in most definitions of RA on minimis- Forum also emphasised the role of intensifying crop pro-
ing external inputs (Newton et al. 2020), in contrast to CA. duction and ecosystem services to help ‘feed the world’ in
This may also be attracting those who are concerned with 2050 (FAO 2009a). The FAO included “SI of crop produc-
CA’s input-heavy practices but are not willing to commit to tion” as a strategic objective in its Strategic Framework
eliminating synthetic inputs as with OA. 2010–2019, along with calls to intensify fish and livestock
13
A. Bless et al.
sectors (FAO 2009b). This sudden rise to prominence of the al. 2018). For instance, the FAO’s new 2022-31 Strategic
SI narrative among leading food governance actors gave Framework (the Framework) has dropped the term ‘intensi-
it near instant legitimacy and centrality within sustainable fication’ for all production areas except aquaculture. Instead,
agriculture debates. one of the Framework’s four goals is to strive for “inclusive
Following the endorsement of SI by the FAO there was food and agriculture supply chains at local, regional, and
a cascade of government and scientific institution policies global levels, ensuring resilience and sustainable agri-food
and reports supporting a shift to SI. It remained a key com- systems” (FAO 2021, p. 16). Likewise, the majority of SI’s
ponent of aid and development policy, with joint initiatives loudest supporters, including agri-food corporations, have
between governments and civil society driving its uptake ceased to use the narrative at all (Mahon et al. 2017; Syn-
such as the joint £70 million in funding by the UK gov- genta 2021). The timing of this sudden demise is significant
ernment and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the when considering the rapid rise to prominence of RA which
Strategic Collaboration Portfolio for the Sustainable Inten- has occurred almost simultaneously with SI’s decline. In
sification of Agriculture (Petersen and Snapp 2015). The the case of agri-food corporations, RA seems an increas-
notion of SI ‘doing more with less’ was attractive to these ingly preferred narrative over SI. Major agri-food corpo-
organisations as a means of sparing land from conversion rations such as Cargill, Mars Inc., Syngenta, and Unilever
to agriculture. Not only could food insecurity be addressed, are making commitments to support RA. These corporate
but land-sparing would help mitigate biodiversity loss, actors are developing their own targets, programs, and even
reduce possible future carbon emissions, and potentially definitions (Giller et al. 2021). The motivations for these
allow for the conversion of agricultural land back to its pre- agri-food corporations in adopting the RA narrative remain
cultivation state (Levidow 2018). underexplored in the academic literature. Though there is
However, while the SI narrative continued to rise on speculation that it is a greenwashing exercise to sell addi-
the wave of corporate, government, academic, and not- tional technologies and inputs and may also be related to
for-profit support (Loos et al. 2014; Mahon et al. 2017), so using soil carbon for offsetting emissions (Wozniacka 2019;
too did critiques of the approach and the similarity of the Gordon et al. 2023). Support for the RA narrative also
productivist discourse within SI with that of industrial agri- seems to be growing in food governance institutions. The
culture. SI’s focus on increased efficiency invokes the risks UNCCD’s Global Land Outlook report’s first edition did
of a Jevon’s paradox, exacerbating rather than restraining not mention the term “regenerative agriculture” at all, but
resource consumption and ecosystem depletion (Polimeni included “sustainable intensification” 14 times (UNCCD
and Polimeni 2006; Goulart et al. 2023). Furthermore, SI’s 2017). The second edition includes 22 mentions of “regen-
lauding of technology-based solutions for the challenges of erative agriculture” and only two mentions of “sustainable
the agri-food system did little to acknowledge the impacts intensification” (UNCCD 2022). These examples indicate a
a reliance on new technologies have had on farmers across change in narrative preference among powerful food gov-
the world, as they became caught on a ‘technological tread- ernance actors. However, further inquiry into the potential
mill’ (Cochrane 1958). The central role of technology in decline of SI, and the integration of its principles into RA, is
the narrative also created space for an even greater role for required to fully understand this trend.
agri-food corporations in production, similar to what has
occurred with CA (Godfray 2015). The absence of food jus- Agroecology
tice and sovereignty considerations in SI meant these power
inequities would be further exacerbated (Levidow 2018). As many scholars have noted (Coolsaet 2016; Rivera-Ferre
Also, concerns remained regarding land degradation due to 2018), the principles and practices associated with sustain-
intensive production, with its impacts on surrounding eco- able agriculture narratives can be found in traditional and
systems, and the maintenance of animal welfare in intensive indigenous cultures around the world (IAASTD 2009).
livestock systems (Chandra et al. 2018). These societies approached agriculture with the understand-
Once espoused as the pathway towards a more sustain- ing that social and ecological outcomes are intertwined and
able agri-food system (Altieri 2012), SI has in the last five interdependent, an idea incompatible with industrial agri-
or so years been removed from sustainable agriculture poli- culture. However, due to colonial knowledge and value pol-
cies across the public and private sector. While the exact itics, the origins of this mindset and the associated practices
reason for this has not been established in the literature, it were disregarded by most sustainable agriculture narratives,
appears that the progressively growing view of SI as ‘busi- including those described thus far, with the exception of AE
ness as usual’ undermined its transformative zeal. From (Altieri and Toledo 2011; Coolsaet 2016).
its peak in media, government, and academic attention in The term ‘agroecology’ descends from the combination
2015-16, SI seems to have fallen out of fashion (Weltin et of the disciplines of ecology and agronomy. As with the
13
genealogy of OA, advances in soil science led to a deeper ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right
understanding among European scientists around the inter- to define their own food and agriculture systems” (World
relationship between agriculture and ecology. In 1928, Rus- Forum for Food Sovereignty 2007; International Planning
sian agronomist Basil Bensin used ‘agroecology’ to describe Committee for Food Sovereignty 2015). Food sovereignty,
the need to consider ecological conditions when enhancing and the AE narrative associated with it, explicitly challenges
farm production. From the 1930s-50s, gradually more calls the dominance of corporate power, neoliberalism, and glo-
were made to consolidate agronomy and ecology to help balisation in the agri-food system. It also advocates for the
maximise agricultural outcomes in different ecological con- rights of indigenous and small-scale farmers and traditional
ditions (Wezel and Soldat 2009). In the 1960s, the accep- landholders (Chaifetz and Jagger 2014). This gives AE a
tance of AE became more established in Western science, strong normative point of difference to other agricultural
regarding the farm more within its social-ecological con- narratives, as it places at its centre the power dynamics and
text as an agroecosystem (Francis et al. 1986). At the same diverse knowledges and cultures that contribute to global
time, the environment movement in the Global North and agri-food systems, geared towards a transformative agenda.
the peasant movement in the Global South began to raise AE might have remained confined to the Global South
concerns regarding the impacts of industrial agriculture on had it not been for the publication of the International
the environment. While in North America and Europe these Assessment of Agriculture, Knowledge, Science and Tech-
concerns manifested in the rise of OA, in the Global South, nology and Development report by the World Bank in 2009
Latin America in particular, there was a growing challenge which drew international awareness to the precarity of the
to the Green Revolution by the peasant movement and a call global agri-food system. Soon after the report was released,
for a return to agroecological practices used traditionally the EU’s Standing Committee on Agricultural Research
by indigenous farmers (Wezel et al. 2009). This AE move- identified AE as a potential pathway for sustainable agricul-
ment grew through the 1980s and 1990s in Latin America, ture. These publications demonstrated a stronger conscious-
institutionalising in groups such as the Latin American Con- ness of AE as an alternative to industrial agriculture in the
sortium of Agroecology and Development, formed in 1989 Global North (Rivera-Ferre 2018). Further recognition has
(Sarandon and Marasas 2017). come from the FAO, who hosted a series of dialogues and
The United Nations Conference on Environment and symposiums from 2014–2018 on AE (Anderson et al. 2021).
Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 emphasised the In 2019, the FAO approved its ’10 elements of agroecol-
impacts agriculture was having on biodiversity, in addition ogy’, a principles-based document promoting the central
to growing dissatisfaction in the Global South of the social role of AE in a sustainable agri-food system (Barrios et al.
impacts of industrial production driven by the Green Revo- 2020). Legislative support for agroecological farming and
lution (Wezel and Soldat 2009). The global scale of these research has also been implemented in European nations,
issues broadened the view of AE to look beyond the farm- such as France in 2015 (Bellon and Ollivier 2018), indicat-
scale agroecosystem to the agri-food system scale. Driving ing an initial process of institutionalisation of the narrative
the consolidation of the scientific and social movement arms in the Global North.
of AE to consider power relations in the agri-food system While endorsement from Global North nations and insti-
and issues of injustice and inequity, as well the integration tutions, and prominent food governance organisations such
of ecology and agronomy (Francis et al. 2003). as the FAO, may have provided AE with a new degree of
Spurred by the growing AE movement, governments in legitimacy, the AE movement has been sceptical of what
Latin America also began to be involved. For instance, in could be perceived as co-option of the narrative by Global
2006 the Bolivian government introduced legislation for North actors. As AE aims to transform the uneven power
the promotion of agroecological production for sustain- distributions of the agri-food system, and there is debate as
able development (Catacora-Vargas et al. 2017). However, to whether AE should ‘scale out’, spreading its principles
unlike with OA, government involvement did not include through farmer-to-farmer networks, or ‘scale-up’, seek-
an attempt to regulate or standardise AE. There remained ing legitimacy and growth via traditional institutions and
a principles-based focus, integrating an ecological mindset policymakers (Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016). AE has
into agricultural production. especially pushed back against perceived attempts to co-opt
The peasant movement, in opposition to the Green Revo- the narrative by agri-food corporations, which could further
lution and an unjust agri-food system, also continued to gain sideline indigenous, Global South, and smallholder actors
global traction. Prominent peasant organisations such as La (Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2016; Alonso-Fradejas et al.
Via Campesina advocated for AE as a key component of the 2020).
food sovereignty movement, calling for “the right of peoples AE is also not without its critiques. Concerns have been
to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through raised regarding whether low-external input agriculture
13
A. Bless et al.
based on an agroecological approach can feed the world Results: contextualising the rise of
under current consumption patterns and future nutrition regenerative agriculture
transitions (Bernard and Lux 2017). Building on these con-
cerns, Jansen (2015) also highlights the limitations of AE The genealogies of these four narratives demonstrate how
rejecting ‘a priori’ the large-scale farming systems and food RA is both similar and different to the narratives explored
processing supply chains that many economies, particularly in terms of its origins and trajectory. Comparing across OA,
in the Global North, rely upon. The focus of AE on small- CA, SI, and AE helps to contextualise RA’s rise among
scale and localised production makes it difficult for com- existing narratives. It provides a significant contribution
modity farmers producing at a large-scale to find their place to the current literature on RA, and sustainable agriculture
in the narrative. narratives more broadly, in terms of their geographical and
The resistance of AE against influence or input from social origins, social-ecological triggers, and how they are
prominent Global North agri-food system actors and its per- situated in agri-food system discussions in the present-day.
ceived rejection of larger-scale producers and food proces- We summarise these similarities and differences in Table 1
sors may have left an opening for the rise of RA (Tittonell et and explore them in more detail through this results section.
al. 2022). RA is a similarly ecologically-minded narrative, The categories chosen for this comparison align with the
however it lacks the transformative social and political goals purpose of the genealogical method to uncover the triggers
of AE (Gordon et al. 2021). The less radical principles of of a narrative, their origins, and how they have evolved over
RA, its ambiguous definition, and its Global North origins time in response to external factors (Kearins and Hooper
could all be contributing to its rise to prominence in coun- 2002). In keeping with the critical approach of the genea-
tries where AE is less well-known, and the favour among logical method (Michael 1982), we focus particularly on the
agri-food corporations towards RA (Wozniacka 2019; Sus- elements of these narratives which relate to issues of power
tainable Food Lab 2021). The favouring of RA over AE as and their positioning in contrast to industrial agriculture.
a sustainable agriculture narrative in the Global North may Like OA, CA, and SI, RA has geographical origins in
not be a conscious choice by RA advocates, but it nonethe- the Global North (O’Donoghue et al. 2022). Its founding
less runs the risk of undermining the progression of AE and actors are similar to OA, CA, and AE in terms of being
its transformative goals. primarily farmers and farmer groups. Though increasingly
interest and support has grown from agri-food businesses
as was the case for CA and SI. As with OA and CA, RA
was also triggered by concerns around land degradation,
Table 1 Summary of the origins Organic Conservation Sustainable Agroecology Regenerative

and current status of sustainable agriculture agriculture intensification agriculture
agriculture narratives
Geographi- Europe, US USA UK, Europe, Latin America, North America,
cal origins and UK North America Europe UK, Australia/NZ
Founding Farmers Farmers, agri- International Peasant organ- Farmers
actors and farmer food businesses institutions, isations, farmers,
associations governments, aca- academia
demia, agri-food
businesses
Social- Urbanisation, Land degrada- 2008/9 food price Green Revolu- Land degradation,
ecological land degradation, develop- crisis, environ- tion – social and climate change
triggers tion, impacts ment of new mental impacts environmental
of chemical technologies of industrial impacts
pollution agriculture
Challenge Eliminating Ensuring Prioritising Supporting Reducing reliance
to industrial synthetic longevity of environmental small-scale, on external inputs,
agriculture inputs, farm and land outcomes in equity oriented, ensuring longev-
nature-based productivity agriculture nature-based ity of farm and
agriculture agriculture land productivity
Status Convention- Widespread Losing popularity Increasing Rapidly emerg-
alisation has adoption due to similarity adoption in food ing as a dominant
led to call for but limited to ‘business as governance insti- narrative, drawing
‘Organic 3.0’ to cropping, usual’ tutions, resisting on limitations of
criticised for co-option by existing sustain-
input reliance powerful actors, able agriculture
and corporate limited uptake in narratives
domination Global North
13
with an explicit focus on soil health (Schreefel et al. 2020), ecologically minded practices and practitioners. On the
while also considering livestock systems, unlike CA (Giller other hand, AE is seeing its legitimacy in agri-food system
et al. 2015). Also in contrast to CA, many RA practitioners governance grow as international organisations such as the
call for a minimisation of external inputs. Instead advocat- FAO throw their support behind it. However, its focus on
ing for restoring and working with ecological systems and radical agri-food system transformation has meant that it
cycles, similar to OA and AE (Gordon et al. 2021). Also key often remains sidelined in agri-food system and sustainabil-
to RA’s emergence has been the focus on soil carbon from ity discussions, such as at COP26 (IPES-Food 2022), and its
the mid-2010s, which similarly bolstered the popularity of rejection of corporate co-option means powerful agri-food
CA (Soussana et al. 2019). The rise to prominence of RA system actors are seeking an alternative course (Giraldo and
around 2015 also aligns with the decline in popularity of the Rosset 2018), potentially RA.
SI narrative (Weltin et al. 2018), the publication of the call On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 2, SI and CA have
for ‘Organic 3.0’ (Arbenz et al. 2016), and the increasing approached the challenges of the agri-food system with a
interest in AE by the FAO (Anderson et al. 2021). technology-oriented mindset, seeking to minimise envi-
Our genealogical analysis of four sustainable agriculture ronmental impacts while maximising outputs (Béné et al.
narratives also indicates how their different approaches to 2019). This has opened the narratives up to critiques of
sustainability have led to a number of contestations and maintaining, rather than challenging, the status-quo. Nota-
overlaps, as summarised in Fig. 2, which RA has the poten- bly, the increased corporate concentration of power over
tial to address. For instance, OA and AE both advocate for agricultural inputs and their promotion of industrial agricul-
ecologically minded agriculture, with an aim to work with ture (Clapp 2021). This calls into question the extent of the
nature rather than against it. However, OA is in the throes transformative ambitions of these narratives, which has led
of an identity crisis, with IFOAM and other actors within to a rise in scepticism around CA and a potential decline in
the narrative seeking a way to differentiate ‘Organic 3.0’ relevance for SI. The former’s focus on cropping systems
from the conventionalisation and scepticism associated has also limited its scope in terms of supporting the transfor-
with ‘Organic 2.0’ (Arbenz et al. 2017). RA, or ‘regenera- mation to more sustainable practices across other agriculture
tive organic’ as a new hybrid term, is also a means for OA sectors (Giller et al. 2015). RA builds on many of the prin-
to distinguish between more ‘conventionalised’ and more ciples of CA, whilst also being applicable to a broader set of
Fig. 2 The current challenges for sustainable agriculture narratives, their overlaps, and the potential gap through which regenerative agriculture
has emerged
13
A. Bless et al.
agriculture sectors. The term ‘regenerative’ is also opaque create power imbalances in agricultural input and distribu-
and undefined (Newton et al. 2020), enabling a comfortable tion systems (Clapp 2021). There are elements within the
space to align to for agri-food system actors who are seek- RA narrative that share this systemic approach with SI and
ing an alternative narrative, from for instance, SI. CA. In particular, the advocacy within RA for minimum and
no-till cropping (Newton et al. 2020), and the prominence of
holistic grazing advocates in RA (Giller et al. 2021). Like-
Discussion: implications of the rise of wise, OA’s focus on non-synthetic inputs as a key element
regenerative agriculture for agri-food of sustainable agri-food system transformation, particularly
system transformation under Organic 2.0 (Arbenz et al. 2017), means that it also
partially aligns with the systemic approach.
Sustainable agricultural production is being contested by Secondly, of the narratives we have analysed, four have
competing and complementary narratives that are supported factors that align with an enabling approach which focuses
by a range of individual, community, government, and cor- on empowering individuals and communities to take action
porate actors. Considering the urgency for agri-food system in transformations (Scoones et al. 2020). OA, CA, AE, and
transformation, the growing RA narrative needs to be under- RA all originated from farmer actors and have provided a
stood in terms of its approach to this transformation. In this consistent role for farmer voices and action within their nar-
paper we utilised the genealogical method to understand ratives. These narratives have helped to drive awareness of
how sustainable agriculture narratives have evolved and sustainable agriculture through supporting individual farmer
contextualise the rise of RA. Here we build on this analysis action, challenging the dominance of industrial agriculture
to explore the transformative potential of these sustainable practices and technologies, and providing a unifying nar-
agriculture narratives, including RA, using the framework rative through which to collectivise and build momentum.
developed by Scoones et al. (2020). We demonstrate how However, as reflected in broader transformations debates
RA largely reflects the approach to transformation of exist- (Cretney and Bond 2014; Blythe et al. 2018) what enabling
ing Global North narratives, and how all narratives but approaches must also acknowledge is that power dynam-
AE lack sufficient recognition of structural challenges that ics can impact how inclusive a transformation might be. Of
are inhibiting a transformation to a sustainable agri-food these enabling approach narratives, the three which have
system. We then consider the potential benefits of narra- arisen from the Global North; OA, CA, and RA; lack a tar-
tive pluralism as a pathway to support agri-food systems geted consideration of power inequities or issues of justice
transformations. and have permitted significant influence of corporations
In exploring how these sustainable agriculture narratives among other powerful food system actors in their develop-
align with Scoones et al.’s (2020) categories of structural, sys- ment. While there are actors within the OA and RA nar-
temic, and enabling approaches, it becomes again clear that ratives, particularly Black, Latinx, Asian, and indigenous
overlaps and differences exist between them (see Table 2). practitioners (Carlisle 2022) who argue for more radical
SI and CA are distinct among the narratives explored in social change, their perspectives remain marginalised (Gor-
this analysis with respect to their focus on techno-scientific don et al. 2023). AE is the only one of these narratives which
solutions for sustainable agriculture. Both therefore reflect fulfils entirely the categorisation of an enabling approach as
a systemic approach in their focus on a particular element it explicitly exposes the required shifts in power dynamics
of the agri-food system, in this case the conservation of soil to support alternative agri-food systems. This also means
and unfarmed land. But in so doing they diminish the role that AE is the only narrative which explicitly invokes a
of politics and power asymmetries (Godfray 2015; Whit- structural approach to transformation, as it challenges the
field et al. 2015) that emerge in techno-oriented pathways ideological and political underpinnings of the agri-food sys-
(Scoones et al. 2020). In particular, these narratives are tem (Wezel et al. 2009). Yet this structural focus of AE cre-
silent on the prominent role of agri-food corporations which ates a direct challenge to the larger production scales and
Table 2 A comparison of how Structural approach Systemic approach Enabling approach
each of the sustainable agricul- Changing the political, Targeting specific Empowering individ-
ture narratives align with the economic, and social system elements for uals and communi-
transformation approaches of foundations of a system change ties to take action
Scoones et al. (2020)
Organic agriculture ~ ~
Conservation agriculture ✔ ~
Legend: Sustainable intensification ✔
✔ Aligns with approach Agroecology ✔ ✔
~ Partially aligns Regenerative agriculture ~ ~
13
commercial supply chains that many farmers and commu- ongoing dominance of corporate and Global North actors
nities rely upon (Jansen 2015). This could lead to tensions (Clapp 2021), this pathway seems unlikely without strate-
in achieving equitable transformations as some local food gic intervention to undermine corporate co-option of the
systems have been designed for, and are supported by, the RA narrative and create space for more diverse voices and
large-scale, export-oriented food commodity markets that knowledges (Gordon et al. 2023). In addition, the rise to
AE seeks to disassemble. prominence of RA and the gaps it addresses does not nec-
Some scholars have proposed RA instead as an overarch- essarily mean that the other sustainable agriculture narra-
ing and unifying narrative, inclusive of other narratives such tives described here are no longer relevant, or that there
as AE and therefore embedding its transformative elements must be one unifying narrative to the exclusion of all others.
(Seymour and Connelly 2022; O’Donoghue et al. 2022). Scoones et al. (2020), emphasise the importance of a plu-
However, there are inherent issues in considering RA as the rality of pathways for transformations, that “no matter how
umbrella term for sustainable agriculture narratives. While specific the context, there is never only one relevant, viable
RA may present a path forward for narratives seeking to path” (2020, p. 70). A plurality of sustainable agriculture
maintain relevance or recover from past critiques (such narratives could provide the opportunity for an inclusive
as with OA, CA, and SI), there are ongoing contestations dialogue which gives space for a variety of perspectives,
among these narratives, and within RA itself (Gordon et al. experiences, knowledges and actors in the agri-food system
2023), as to whether agri-food system transformation can (Kassam and Kassam 2020; Turnhout et al. 2021).
be achieved through techno-scientific or social-ecological This plurality would also reflect the diversity of the
means (Béné et al. 2019). There are also questions regarding world’s agri-food system in which there are over 570 mil-
who is involved in the sustainable agri-food system trans- lion farms, of which 72% are smaller than one hectare, but
formation and how, which the current state of RA thinking with the largest being the size of small countries (Lowder et
and practices fails to resolve in its relative silence regarding al. 2016). Diversity in the agri-food system is also deplet-
social and power dynamics. ing as a result of industrial agriculture. Of the more than
There is also a risk that RA might perpetuate barriers to 6,000 different plant species cultivated for food, just nine
agri-food system transformation as opposed to challeng- contribute around 66% of total crop production, and 26%
ing them. For instance, RA’s Global North origins and the of the world’s livestock breeds are believed to be at risk
increasing role of corporate actors in the narrative’s devel- of extinction (Jones et al. 2021). A plurality of sustainable
opment (Gordon et al. 2023). This is reminiscent of other agriculture narratives could therefore help support the rein-
sustainable agriculture narratives, such as SI and CA, whose vigoration of biocultural diversity in food systems and a
systemic approaches to transformation have been dismissed greater range of production systems, enhancing social and
as being business-as-usual. RA’s lack of acknowledgment ecological outcomes (Argumedo et al. 2021; Hertel et al.
of structural considerations such as issues of equity and 2021). As the issues and solutions for sustainable agricul-
justice in the agri-food system are also in contrast with AE ture are inherently place-based (Loring 2022), the more
(IPES-Food 2022). The rise of RA, another narrative from locally grounded and culturally appropriate sustainable
the Global North, may therefore contribute to crowding out agriculture narratives are, the more likely we can achieve
Global South voices such as the AE narrative, and their calls an agri-food system transformation towards sustainability
for improved social, as well as ecological, outcomes in the (Gosnell 2021; Sumberg and Giller 2022). Therefore, in
agri-food system. Doing so would perpetuate an ongoing appropriate social-ecological contexts, RA could present a
cycle of oppression of marginalised voices in agri-food sys- viable and more sustainable alternative to industrial agri-
tem institutions and processes (Winslow 2017). This lack of culture (Tittonell et al. 2022). However, the politics that a
acknowledgement of the key role that diverse knowledges plurality of perspectives brings cannot be ignored (Scoones
and voices play in achieving transformations and the signifi- et al. 2020), pointing towards a need for ongoing resistance
cance of power and political dynamics (Blythe et al. 2018; against power dynamics that might further neglect margin-
Scoones et al. 2020) also inhibits RA’s unifying abilities and alised voices and undermine the benefits that knowledge
transformative potential. diversity would bring to agri-food system transformation.
However, if currently marginalised voices in the RA nar- The outcomes of our exploration into the genealogies of
rative, who are calling for more radical social action, are sustainable agriculture narratives and RA therefore present
given a more prominent and equitable platform, RA may a platform for future enquiry into this emerging narrative.
prove a stepping-stone for mainstream farmers towards the There remains an ongoing research agenda to explore further
ideas of justice and equity promoted by AE (Gosnell 2021; the contestations within the RA narrative and the motiva-
Gordon et al. 2023). But given the current socio-economic tions of actors who are promoting particular interpretations
climate within the agri-food system which supports the of RA, particularly within the corporate sector. There is also
13
A. Bless et al.
a need to determine whether RA actors are conscious of of the tide against industrial agriculture. This plurality of
and acting upon its critiques regarding corporate co-option narratives could help to navigate the transformation towards
and lack of a justice and equity focus, and what interven- a sustainable agri-food system, but only if equity, justice,
tions could be undertaken to address these trends. Likewise, and diversity are central to this transformation pathway.
other potentially relevant narratives such as biodynamic
agriculture, permaculture, or climate-smart agriculture and Acknowledgements The authors thank the four anonymous reviewers,
all of whom provided valuable comments and suggestions.
their genealogies and transformational approaches could be
explored to further contextualise RA. Further work to dis- Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and
tinguish the geo-political and social-ecological contours of its Member Institutions
sustainable agriculture narratives could also assist in bet-
ter embedding and encouraging transformative narratives Statements and Declarations The research and development of this
within appropriate local contexts and fostering productive study was supported by the Australian Government through the Re-
search Training Program Scholarship and the University of Technolo-
plurality in sustainable agriculture. gy Sydney through the Research Excellence Scholarship. There are no
conflicts of interest to declare. Study conception, data collection and
analysis were performed by the lead author. All authors contributed to
Conclusion the study design. The manuscript was drafted by the lead author and
all authors commented on and contributed to the subsequent versions
of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The genealogies of sustainable agriculture narratives have
descended from shared concerns regarding the impacts Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
industrial agriculture has on society and the environment. Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
Bolstered by the cultural force of the environment move-
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
ment, injustices caused by the Green Revolution, and con- source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
cerns about food security, they have diffused across the if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
globe, involving increasingly broader sets of actors and article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
advocates. Concerns around productivity, the development
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
of new technologies, and increasing awareness of the power use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
inequities of the agri-food system have added further com- use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
plexity to the sustainable agriculture debate. The threats of holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
climate change and biodiversity loss have heightened the
urgency for change.
By exploring the genealogies of prominent sustainable
agriculture narratives; OA, CA, SI, and AE; we have shown References
how these narratives have evolved to provide critical con-
Alonso-Fradejas, A., L. F. Forero, D. Ortega-Espès, M. Drago, and
text for the rise of RA. The gaps left by the contestations K. Chandrasekaran. 2020. “Junk Agroecology”: The corporate
within and between these narratives has helped facilitate capture of agroecology for a partial ecological transition without
RA to quickly come into prominence. RA helps to bolster social justice. Friends of the Earth International; Transnational
Institute; Crocevia. https://www.tni.org/files/publication-down-
the drive for ecologically minded agriculture, supporting
loads/38_foei_junk_agroecology_full_report_eng_lr_0.pdf.
enabling approaches to agri-food system transformation, Accessed 17 May 2021.
and provides the opportunity to redefine narratives which Altieri, M. A. 2012. Convergence or divide in the Movement for sus-
are losing relevance. However, given the contestations that tainable and just Agriculture. In Organic Fertilisation, Soil Qual-
ity and Human Health, ed. E. Lichtfouse, 1–9. Dordrecht: Springer
exist, it is difficult to see how RA can be an ‘umbrella term’
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4113-3_1.
for the agri-food systems transformation. Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution
Our analysis indicates that RA’s Global North origins in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and
and lack of recognition of inequities in the agri-food sys- empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (3): 587–
612. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947.
tem risks helping to drown out, rather than empower, the
Anderson, C. R., J. Bruil, M. J. Chappell, C. Kiss, and M. P. Pimbert.
marginalised voices represented by enabling and structur- 2021. Agroecology now! Transformations towards more just and
ally transformative narratives such as AE. The growing cor- sustainable Food Systems. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://
porate interest in RA may also indicate that it is simply the doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61315-0.
Anderson, M. D., and M. Rivera-Ferre. 2020. Food system narratives
new narrative to cover up ‘business as usual’, just as SI and
to end hunger: extractive versus regenerative. Current Opin-
CA were before it. Nonetheless, the increasing number of ion in Environmental Sustainability 49 (2): 18–25. https://doi.
sustainable agriculture narratives, including RA, with their org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.12.002.
more holistic and ambitious agendas may indicate a turning Arbenz, Markus, D. Gould, and C. Stopes. 2017. ORGANIC 3.0—
the vision of the global organic movement and the need for
13
scientific support. Organic Agriculture 7 (3): 199–207. https:// Catacora-Vargas, G., A. Piepenstock, C. Sotomayor, D. Cuentas, A.
doi.org/10.1007/s13165-017-0177-7. Cruz, and F. Delgado. 2017. Brief historical review of agroecol-
Arbenz, M., D. Gould, and C. Stopes. 2016. Organic 3.0 - for truly ogy in Bolivia. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41
sustainable farming and consumption. Organic 3.0 - for truly sus- (3–4): 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.129073
tainable farming and consumptionhttp://www.cabdirect.org/cab- 2.
direct/abstract/20173071820. Accessed 20 August 2021. Chaifetz, A., and P. Jagger. 2014. 40 years of dialogue on food sover-
Argumedo, A., Y. Song, C. K. Khoury, D. Hunter, H. Dempewolf, L. eignty: a review and a look ahead. Global Food Security 3: 85–91.
Guarino, and S. de Haan. 2021. Biocultural Diversity for Food Chandra, A., K. E. McNamara, and P. Dargusch. 2018. Climate-smart
System Transformation Under Global Environmental Change. agriculture: perspectives and framings. Climate Policy 18 (4):
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1316968.
fsufs.2021.685299. Chien, M. 2021. John Deere: Business Breakdowns Research (p. 8).
Aschemann, J., U. Hamm, S. Naspetti, and R. Zanoli. 2007. The Colossus, LLC.
Organic Market. In Organic Farming: An International History, Clapp, J. 2021. The problem with growing corporate concentration
ed. William Lockeretz, 123–151. Cambridge, MA: CABI: Wall- and power in the global food system. Nature Food 2: 404–408.
ingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00297-7.
Barrios, E., B. Gemmill-Herren, A. Bicksler, E. Siliprandi, R. Brath- Cochrane, W. W. 1958. Farm Prices: Myth and Reality (Vol. 324).
waite, and S. Moller, et al. 2020. The 10 elements of Agroecol- Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.
ogy: enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food org/10.1177/000271625932400155. Accessed 7 April 2020.
systems through visual narratives. Ecosystems and People 16 (1): Constance, D. H., and A. Moseley. 2018. Agrifood discourses
230–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1808705. and feeding the world: Unpacking sustainable intensifica-
Bastalich, W. 2009. Reading Foucault: Genealogy and Social Science tion. In D. H. Constance, J. T. Konefal, & M. Hatanaka (Eds.),
Research Methodology and Ethics. Sociological Research Online Contested Sustainability Discourses in the Agrifood System
14 (2): 81–90. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1905. (pp. 59–74). London: Routledge/Earthscan. https://www.tay-
Bell, M., and S. Bellon. 2021. The rhetorics of agroecology: positions, lorfrancis.com/books/e/9781351664929/chapters/10.4324
trajectories, strategies. In Agroecological transitions, between %2F9781315161297-11. Accessed 3 May 2021.
determinist and open-ended versions (Vol, eds. C. Lamine, D. Coolsaet, B. 2016. Towards an agroecology of knowledges: Rec-
Magda, M. Rivera-Ferre, and T. Marsden, 37, 289–309. Brux- ognition, cognitive justice and farmers’ autonomy in France.
elles, Belgium: Peter Lang Verlag. Journal of Rural Studies 47: 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bellon, S., and G. Ollivier. 2018. Institutionalizing agroecology in jrurstud.2016.07.012.
France: social circulation changes the meaning of an idea. Sustain- Cretney, R., and S. Bond. 2014. ‘Bouncing back’ to capitalism? Grass-
ability 10 (5): 1380–1409. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051380. roots autonomous activism in shaping discourses of resilience
Bernard, B., and A. Lux. 2017. How to feed the world sustainably: an and transformation following disaster. Resilience 2 (1): 18–31.
overview of the discourse on agroecology and sustainable inten- https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2013.872449.
sification. Regional Environmental Change 17 (5): 1279–1290. Danneels, K., B. Notteboom, and G. De Block. 2020. A Historical
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1027-y. Perspective on Resilient Urbanism: The “Sociobiology of Cities”
Bernstein, H. 2016. Agrarian political economy and modern world and “Ecosystem Urbs” in Belgium, 1900–1980. In D. Brantz &
capitalism: the contributions of food regime analysis. The Journal A. Sharma (Eds.), Urban Resilience in a Global Context: Actors,
of Peasant Studies 43 (3): 611–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/0306 Narratives, and Temporalities (pp. 35–56). transcript Verlag.
6150.2015.1101456. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839450185.
Beus, C. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1990. Conventional versus alternative Darnhofer, I., T. Lindenthal, R. Bartel-Kratochvil, and W. Zollitsch.
agriculture: the paradigmatic roots of the Debate*. Rural Sociol- 2010. Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from
ogy 55 (4): 590–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1990. structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic prin-
tb00699.x. ciples. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30 (1):
Billi, M., C. Zurbriggen, and D. Morchain. 2022. Editorial: Discuss- 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009011.
ing structural, systemic and enabling approaches to socio-envi- Dean, M. 1992. A genealogy of the government of pov-
ronmental transformations: Stimulating an interdisciplinary and erty. Economy and Society 21 (3): 215–251. https://doi.
plural debate within the social sciences. Frontiers in Sociology, org/10.1080/03085149200000012.
7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/ De Lucia, V. 2015. Competing narratives and complex genealo-
fsoc.2022.968018. Accessed 15 November 2022. gies: the Ecosystem Approach in International Environmental
Blythe, J., J. Silver, L. Evans, D. Armitage, N. J. Bennett, and M.-L. Law. Journal of Environmental Law 27 (1): 91–117. https://doi.
Moore, et al. 2018. The Dark Side of Transformation: latent risks org/10.1093/jel/equ031.
in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 50 (5): 1206– Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. 2020,
1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405. August 4. Regenerative agriculture and pastoralism in Western
Béné, C., P. Oosterveer, L. Lamotte, I. D. Brouwer, S. de Haan, and S. D. Australia. Government of Western Australia. Text. https://www.
Prager, et al. 2019. When food systems meet sustainability – cur- agric.wa.gov.au/land-use/regenerative-agriculture-and-pastoral-
rent narratives and implications for actions. World Development ism-western-australia. Accessed 24 August 2020.
113: 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011. Derpsch, R. 1998. Historical review of no-tillage cultivation of crops. In
Cabral, L., and J. Sumberg. 2022. The use of epic narratives in pro- Proceedings of the 1st JIRCAS Seminar on Soybean Research on
moting ‘natural agriculture.’. Outlook on Agriculture 51 (1): 129– No-Tillage Culture & Future Research Needs (Vol. 13, pp. 1–18).
136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270221077708. Presented at the JIRCAS Seminar on Soybean Research on No-
Cardwell, M., and F. Smith. 2013. Renegotiation of the WTO Agree- Tillage Culture & Future Research Needs, Iguassu Falls, Brazil:
ment on Agriculture: accommodating the New Big Issues. Inter- JIRCAS.
national & Comparative Law Quarterly 62 (4): 865–898. https:// Dipu, M. A., N. A. Jones, and A. A. Aziz. 2022. Drivers and barriers
doi.org/10.1017/S0020589313000341. to uptake of regenerative agriculture in southeast Queensland: a
Carlisle, L. 2022. Healing Grounds: Climate, Justice, and the deep mental model study. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,
roots of regenerative farming. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2114120.
13
A. Bless et al.
El Bilali, H. 2019. The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on sus- Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2018. Agroecology as a territory
tainability transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: a sys- in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. The
tematic review. Agriculture 9 (4): 74–97. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3): 545–564. https://doi.org/10.10
agriculture9040074. 80/03066150.2017.1353496.
Ely, A., A. Marin, F. Marshall, M. Apgar, H. Eakin, and L. Pereira, et Godfray, H. C. J. 2015. The debate over sustainable intensifica-
al. 2021. Emerging insights and lessons for the future. In Trans- tion. Food Security 7 (2): 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/
formative pathways to sustainability: learning across disciplines, s12571-015-0424-2.
cultures and contexts, ed. A. Ely, 206–232. Routledge. Gordon, E., F. Davila, and C. Riedy. 2021. Transforming landscapes
FAO. 2009a. How to Feed the World in 2050 (Expert Paper). Rome: and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture. Agriculture
FAO. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_ and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10276-0.
paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf. Accessed 27 May Gordon, E., F. Davila, and C. Riedy. 2023. Regenerative agricul-
2022. ture: a potentially transformative storyline shared by nine
FAO. 2009b. Strategic framework 2010–2019. Food and Agricul- discourses. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/
ture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/ s11625-022-01281-1.
k5864e01/k5864e01.pdf. Gosnell, H. 2021. Regenerating soil, regenerating soul: an integral
FAO. 2017. Conservation Agriculture. Plant Production and Protec- approach to understanding agricultural transformation. Sustain-
tion Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United ability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00993-0.
Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/i7480e/i7480e.pdf. Accessed 10 Goulart, F. F., M. J. Chappell, F. Mertens, and B. Soares-Filho. 2023.
January 2022. Sparing or expanding? The effects of agricultural yields on farm
FAO. 2021. Strategic Framework 2022-31. Food and Agriculture expansion and deforestation in the tropics. Biodiversity and Con-
Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/ servation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02540-4.
cb7099en/cb7099en.pdf. Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farm-
Fassler, J. 2021, May 3. Regenerative agriculture needs a reckoning. ing in California (1st ed.). University of California Press. http://
The Counter. https://thecounter.org/regenerative-agriculture- www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnn9k. Accessed 23 Septem-
racial-equity-climate-change-carbon-farming-environmental- ber 2021.
issues/. Accessed 1 March 2022. Guthman, J. 2019. The (continuing) paradox of the organic label:
Fenster, T. L. D., C. E. LaCanne, J. R. Pecenka, R. B. Schmid, M. M. reflections on US trajectories in the era of mainstreaming. In
Bredeson, and K. M. Busenitz, et al. 2021. Defining and vali- Alternative food politics: from the margins to the Mainstream,
dating regenerative farm systems using a composite of ranked eds. M. Phillipov, and K. Kirkwood, 1st ed., 23–36. London:
agricultural practices. F1000Research, 10, 115–138. https://doi. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
org/10.12688/f1000research.28450.1. Halberg, N., H. F. Alrøe, and E. S. Kristensen. 2006. Synthe-
Foucault, M. 1977. Nietzsche, Genealogy, History. In P. Rabinow sis: prospects for organic agriculture in a global context. In
(Ed.), D. F. Bouchard & S. Simon (Trans.), The Foucault Reader Global development of organic agriculture: challenges and
(pp. 76–100). New York: Pantheon Books. https://noehernandez- prospects, eds. N. Halberg, H. F. Alrøe, M. T. Knudsen, and
cortez.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nietzsche-genealogy-history. E. S. Kristensen, 343–367. Wallingford: CABI. https://doi.
pdf. Accessed 24 May 2022. org/10.1079/9781845930783.0343.
Francis, C. A., R. R. Harwood, and J. F. Parr. 1986. The potential Hertel, T., I. Elouafi, M. Tanticharoen, and F. Ewert. 2021. Diversifica-
for regenerative agriculture in the developing world. Ameri- tion for enhanced food systems resilience. Nature Food 2 (11):
can Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1 (2): 65–74. https://doi. 832–834. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00403-9.
org/10.1017/S0889189300000904. Holt-Giménez, E., and M. Altieri. 2016, October 18. Agroecology
Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T. A. Breland, N. Creamer, and “Lite:” Cooptation and Resistance in the Global North. Food
R. Harwood, et al. 2003. Agroecology: the Ecology of Food Sys- First. https://foodfirst.org/agroecology-lite-cooptation-and-resis-
tems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3): 99–118. https:// tance-in-the-global-north/. Accessed 2 March 2021.
doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03_10. Horrigan, L., R. S. Lawrence, and P. Walker. 2002. How sustainable
Friedmann, H., and P. McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the State agriculture can address the environmental and human health
System: the rise and decline of national agricultures, 1870 to harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspec-
the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (2): 93–117. https://doi. tives 110 (5): 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110445.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.1989.tb00360.x. IAASTD. 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads - Global Report. (eds.
Garland, D. 2014. What is a “history of the present”? On Foucault’s B. D. McIntyre, H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, and R. T. Watson,).
genealogies and their critical preconditions. Punishment & Soci- Washington, DC: Island Press.
ety 16 (4): 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474514541711. InterAcademy, and Council, eds. 2004. Realizing the promise and
Gewin, V. 2021, July 27. As Carbon Markets Reward New Efforts, potential of african agriculture: science and technology strate-
Will Regenerative Farming Pioneers Be Left in the Dirt? Civil gies for improving agricultural productivity and food security in
Eats. https://civileats.com/2021/07/27/as-carbon-markets- Africa. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council.
reward-new-efforts-will-regenerative-farming-pioneers-be-left- International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty. 2015. Nyé-
in-the-dirt/. Accessed 10 January 2022. léni Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology. La
Gibbons, L. V. 2020. Regenerative—the New Sustainable? Sustain- Via Campesina. https://viacampesina.org/en/declaration-of-the-
ability 12 (13): 5483–5501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135483. international-forum-for-agroecology/. Accessed 2 March 2021.
Giller, K. E., J. A. Andersson, M. Corbeels, J. Kirkegaard, D. IPCC. 2019. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on
Mortensen, O. Erenstein, and B. Vanlauwe. 2015. Beyond con- climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable
servation agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science 6: 1–14. https:// land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00870. terrestrial ecosystems. United Nations. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/
Giller, K. E., R. Hijbeek, J. A. Andersson, and J. Sumberg. 2021. Regen- assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.
erative agriculture: an agronomic perspective. Outlook on Agri- pdf. Accessed 17 August 2020.
culture X (X): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727021998063. IPES-Food. 2022. Smoke and Mirrors: Examining competing fram-
ings of food system sustainability: agroecology, regenerative
13
agriculture, and nature-based solutions International Panel of Lowder, S. K., J. Skoet, and T. Raney. 2016. The number, size, and dis-
Experts on Sustainable Food systems. http://www.ipes-food.org/ tribution of farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms World-
pages/smokeandmirrors. Accessed 28 October 2022. wide. World Development 87: 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Janker, J., S. Mann, and S. Rist. 2018. What is sustainable agriculture? worlddev.2015.10.041.
Critical analysis of the International Political Discourse. Sustain- Luederitz, C., D. J. Abson, R. Audet, and D. J. Lang. 2017. Many path-
ability 10 (12): 4707–4725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124707. ways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between
Jansen, K. 2015. The debate on food sovereignty theory: agrarian capi- transition narratives. Sustainability Science 12 (3): 393–407.
talism, dispossession and agroecology. The Journal of Peasant https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0414-0.
Studies 42 (1): 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014 Mahon, N., I. Crute, E. Simmons, and Md. M. Islam. 2017. Sus-
.945166. tainable intensification – “oxymoron” or “third-way”? A sys-
Jarosz, L. 2014. Comparing food security and food sovereignty dis- tematic review. Ecological Indicators 74: 73–97. https://doi.
courses. Dialogues in Human Geography 4 (2): 168–181. https:// org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.001.
doi.org/10.1177/2043820614537161. McKenzie, F. C., and J. Williams. 2015. Sustainable food production:
Jones, S. K., N. Estrada-Carmona, S. D. Juventia, M. E. Dulloo, M.-A. constraints, challenges and choices by 2050. Food Security 7 (2):
Laporte, C. Villani, and R. Remans. 2021. Agrobiodiversity Index 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0441-1.
scores show agrobiodiversity is underutilized in national food McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. The Jour-
systems. Nature Food 2 (9): 712–723. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 139–169. https://doi.
s43016-021-00344-3. org/10.1080/03066150902820354.
Kaplan, D. M. 2016. Narratives of Food, Agriculture, and the Environ- Michael, D. 1982. Foucault’s genealogy of the human sci-
ment. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics, eds. S. ences. Economy and Society 11 (4): 363–380. https://doi.
M. Gardiner, and A. Thompson, 1st ed. Oxford University Press. org/10.1080/03085148200000013.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199941339.013.36. Mittal, A. 2009. The 2008 Food Price Crisis: Rethinking Food Security
Kassam, Amir, and L. Kassam. 2020. Paradigms of agriculture. In Policies (G-24 Discussion Paper No. No. 56). UNCTAD. https://
Amir Kassam & L. Kassam (Eds.), Rethinking Food and Agricul- unctad.org/system/files/official-document/gdsmdpg2420093_
ture: New ways forward (1st ed., pp. 181–218). Woodhead Pub- en.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2022.
lishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816410-5.00010-4. Montenegro de Wit, M., and A. Iles. 2016. Toward thick legitimacy:
Kassam, Amir, T. Friedrich, F. Shaxson, and J. Pretty. 2009. The spread creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology. Elementa: Science
of Conservation Agriculture: justification, sustainability and of the Anthropocene 4: 115–138. https://doi.org/10.12952/jour-
uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(4), nal.elementa.000115.
292–320. http://www.proquest.com/docview/214038096/abstract National Farmers Union. 2021, February 2. Tune in for our next
/9C80C030597B474APQ/1. Accessed 20 August 2021. NFUniversity Climate Class on Thursday, Feb 11th! We’ll
Kassam, Amir, T. Friedrich, F. Shaxson, H. Bartz, I. Mello, J. Kien- be covering regenerative agriculture, looking at techniques
zle, and J. Pretty. 2014. The spread of Conservation Agriculture: and practices that reduce emissions, while also building on-
policy and institutional support for adoption and uptake. Field farm climate resiliency. Registration is free! Sign up at http://
Actions Science Reports 7: 1–12. ow.ly/7wFd50DocA3https://t.co/6T9qvghwfi. Twitter. Tweet.
Kassam, A., T. Friedrich, and R. Derpsch. 2019. Global spread of Con- https://twitter.com/NFUcanada/status/1356618760493367296.
servation Agriculture. International Journal of Environmental Accessed 4 August 2022.
Studies 76 (1): 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2018.1 Newton, P., N. Civita, L. Frankel-Goldwater, K. Bartel, and C. Johns.
494927. 2020. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar
Kearins, K., and K. Hooper. 2002. Genealogical method and analysis. and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes.
Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal 15 (5): 733–757. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210448984. fsufs.2020.577723.
Kiss the Ground Movie/Big Picture Ranch. 2022. Kiss the Ground - Northbourne, L. C. J. 2003. Look to the land. 2nd ed. Hillsdale NY:
Watch. Kiss the Ground Film. https://kissthegroundmovie.com/. Sophia Perennis.
Accessed 10 January 2022. Oberč, B. P., and A. Arroyo Schnell. 2020. Approaches to sustainable
Levidow, L. 2018. Sustainable Intensification: Agroecological Appro- agriculture: exploring the pathways towards the future of farm-
priation or Contestation? In D. H. Constance, J. T. Konefal, & M. ing. Brussels, Belgium: IUCN EURO. https://doi.org/10.2305/
Hatanaka (Eds.), Contested Sustainability Discourses in the Agri- IUCN.CH.2020.07.en.
food System (pp. 19–41). London: Routledge/Earthscan. https:// O’Donoghue, T., B. Minasny, and A. McBratney. 2022. Regenerative
www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781351664929/chapters/10.43 agriculture and its potential to improve farmscape function. Sus-
24%2F9781315161297-11. Accessed 3 May 2021. tainability 14 (10): 5815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105815.
Lockeretz, W. 2007. What explains the rise of Organic Farming? In Parrott, N., J. E. Olesen, and H. Høgh-Jensen. 2006. Certified and
Organic Farming: An International History, ed. William Lock- non-certified organic farming in the developing world. In
eretz, 1–8. Cambridge, MA: CABI: Wallingford, UK. Global development of organic agriculture: challenges and
Lockie, S., K. Lyons, G. Lawrence, and D. Halpin. 2006. Going prospects, eds. N. Halberg, H. F. Alrøe, M. T. Knudsen, and
organic: mobilizing networks for environmentally respon- E. S. Kristensen, 153–179. Wallingford: CABI. https://doi.
sible food production. Wallingford: CABI. https://doi. org/10.1079/9781845930783.0153.
org/10.1079/9781845931322.0000. Patterson, J., K. Schulz, J. Vervoort, S. van der Hel, O. Widerberg,
Loos, J., D. J. Abson, M. J. Chappell, J. Hanspach, F. Mikulcak, M. and C. Adler, et al. 2017. Exploring the governance and politics
Tichit, and J. Fischer. 2014. Putting meaning back into “sustain- of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innova-
able intensification”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment tion and Societal Transitions 24: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
12 (6): 356–361. https://doi.org/10.1890/130157. eist.2016.09.001.
Loring, P. A. 2022. Regenerative food systems and the conservation of Paull, J. 2009. A century of synthetic fertilizer: 1909–2009. Journal of
change. Agriculture and Human Values 39 (2): 701–713. https:// Bio-Dynamics Tasmania 94 (1): 16–21.
doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10282-2.
13
A. Bless et al.
Petersen, B., and S. Snapp. 2015. What is sustainable intensifica- Sumberg, J., and K. E. Giller. 2022. What is ‘conventional’ agricul-
tion? Views from experts. Land Use Policy 46: 1–10. https://doi. ture? Global Food Security 32: 100617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.002. gfs.2022.100617.
Polimeni, J. M., and R. I. Polimeni. 2006. Jevons’ Paradox and the Sustainable Food Lab. 2021. Regenerative Agriculture - How to
myth of technological liberation. Ecological Complexity 3 (4): make it grow: The role of companies in galvanizing systems
344–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.008. change. Vermont: Sustainable Food Lab; Midwest Row Crop
Pretty, J. N. 1997. The sustainable intensification of agricul- Collaborative. https://sustainablefoodlab.org/wp-content/
ture. Natural Resources Forum 21 (4): 247–256. https://doi. uploads/2022/02/2021-Scale-Lab-final.pdf. Accessed 18 August
org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1997.tb00699.x. 2022.
Reed, M. J., and G. C. Holt. 2006. Sociological perspectives of Organic Syngenta. 2021. What we do. Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable
Agriculture: an introduction. In Sociological perspectives of Agriculture. https://www.syngentafoundation.org/what-we-do.
organic agriculture: from pioneer to policy, eds. M. Reed, and Accessed 10 January 2022.
G. Holt, 1st ed., 1–17. Cambridge, MA: CABI: Wallingford, UK. The Nature Conservancy. 2021. What Are Regenerative Food Sys-
Rivera-Ferre, M. G. 2018. The resignification process of Agroecology: tems? | The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy.
competing narratives from governments, civil society and inter- https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/provide-
governmental organizations. Agroecology and Sustainable Food food-and-water-sustainably/food-and-water-stories/regenerative-
Systems 42 (6): 666–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.201 food-systems/. Accessed 10 January 2022.
8.1437498. The Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the benefits: science and the sus-
Rodale Institute. 2018. Regenerative Organic Agricultur. Rodale tainable intensification of global agriculture. London: The Royal
Institute. https://rodaleinstitute.org/why-organic/organic-basics/ Society.
regenerative-organic-agriculture/. Accessed 10 January 2022. Tittonell, P., V. El Mujtar, G. Felix, Y. Kebede, L. Laborda, R. Luján
Sarandon, S., and M. E. Marasas. 2017. Brief history of agroecology in Soto, and J. de Vente. 2022. Regenerative agriculture—agroecol-
Argentina: origins, evolution, and future prospects. Agroecology ogy without politics? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems,
and Sustainable Food Systems 41 (3–4): 238–255. https://doi.org 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/
/10.1080/21683565.2017.1287808. fsufs.2022.844261. Accessed 14 September 2022.
Schlatter, B., J. Trávníček, C. Meier, O. Keller, and H. Willer. 2021. Triplett, G. B., and W. A. Dick. 2008. No-Tillage Crop Production:
Current statistics on Organic Agriculture Worldwide: area, opera- A Revolution in Agriculture! Agronomy Journal, 100, S153–
tors, and market. In The World of Organic Agriculture: statistics S165. https://www.proquest.com/docview/194515641/citation/
and emerging Trends 2021, eds. H. Willer, J. Trávníček, C. Meier, FA67E80862A746CAPQ/1. Accessed 21 October 2021.
and B. Schlatter, 32–134. Bonn: Research Institute of Organic Turnhout, E., J. Duncan, J. Candel, T. Y. Maas, A. M. Roodhof, F.
Agriculture FiBL, Frick, and IFOAM - Organics. DeClerck, and R. T. Watson. 2021. Do we need a new science-
Schmid, O. 2007. Development of Standards for Organic Farming. In policy interface for food systems? Science 373 (6559): 1093–
Organic Farming: An International History, ed. William Lock- 1095. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj5263.
eretz, 152–174. Cambridge, MA: CABI: Wallingford, UK. UNCCD. 2017. Global Land Outlook (No. First Edition). Bonn:
Schreefel, L., R. P. O. Schulte, I. J. M. de Boer, A. Pas Schrijver, and H. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. https://
H. van Zanten E. 2020. Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2018-06/GLO%20Eng-
base. Global Food Security 26: 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lish_Full_Report_rev1.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2022.
gfs.2020.100404. UNCCD. 2022. The Global Land Outlook: Land Restoration for
Scoones, I., A. Stirling, D. Abrol, J. Atela, L. Charli-Joseph, and Recovery and Resilience (No. Second Edition). Bonn: United
H. Eakin, et al. 2020. Transformations to sustainability: com- Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. https://www.
bining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-04/UNCCD_GLO2_low-res_2.
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 65–75. https://doi. pdf. Accessed 9 May 2022.
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.004. United Nations. 1999, June 28. Codex Alimentarius Commission to
Seymour, M., and S. Connelly. 2022. Regenerative agriculture and a Approve International Guidelines for Organic Food. SAG. https://
more-than-human ethic of care: a relational approach to under- www.un.org/press/en/1999/19990628.SAG43.html. Accessed 14
standing transformation. Agriculture and Human Values. https:// October 2021.
doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10350-1. Vogt, G. 2007. The Origins of Organic Farming. In Organic Farm-
Soloviev, E. 2020, September 17. Regenerative Agriculture Industry ing: An International History, ed. William Lockeretz, 9–29. Cam-
Map. Medium. https://medium.com/@ethansoloviev/regenera- bridge, MA: CABI: Wallingford, UK.
tive-agriculture-industry-map-82ae2a589be8. Accessed 28 April Walker, J., and M. Cooper. 2011. Genealogies of resilience: from
2021. systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adap-
Soloviev, E. R., and G. Landua. 2016. Levels of Regenerative Agricul- tation. Security Dialogue 42 (2): 143–160. https://doi.
ture. Terra Genesis International. http://www.terra-genesis.com/ org/10.1177/0967010611399616.
wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Levels-of-Regenerative-Agricul- Weltin, M., I. Zasada, A. Piorr, M. Debolini, G. Geniaux, and O.
ture-1.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2021. Moreno-Pérez, et al. 2018. Conceptualising fields of action
Soussana, J.-F., S. Lutfalla, F. Ehrhardt, T. Rosenstock, C. Lamanna, for sustainable intensification-A systematic literature review
and P. Havlík, et al. 2019. Matching policy and science: Rationale and application to regional case studies. Agriculture Ecosys-
for the ‘4 per 1000 - soils for food security and climate’ initiative. tems & Environment 257: 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Soil and Tillage Research 188: 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2018.01.023.
still.2017.12.002. Westengen, O. T., P. Nyanga, D. Chibamba, M. Guillen-Royo, and D.
Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S. E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, Banik. 2018. A climate for commerce: the political agronomy of
and E. M. Bennett, et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding conservation agriculture in Zambia. Agriculture and Human Val-
human development on a changing planet. Science. https://doi. ues 35 (1): 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9820-x.
org/10.1126/science.1259855. Wezel, A., and V. Soldat. 2009. A quantitative and qualitative historical
analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology. International
13
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (1): 3–18. https://doi. Anja Bless is a PhD candidate with the Institute for Sustainable
org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0400. Futures at the University of Technology Sydney where she is research-
Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. ing the politics of regenerative agriculture. Her focus areas are environ-
2009. Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a practice. mental politics, food politics and policy, sustainable consumption, and
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 503–515. https://doi. sustainable food systems. She completed her Honours (First Class) in
org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_3. Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney
Whitfield, S., A. J. Dougill, J. C. Dyer, F. K. Kalaba, J. Leventon, and and holds a Master of Environment (Distinction) in Sustainable Food
L. C. Stringer. 2015. Critical reflection on knowledge and narra- Systems from the University of Melbourne.
tives of conservation agriculture. Geoforum 60: 133–142. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.01.016. Federico Davila is an interdisciplinary social scientist at the Insti-
Wilson, G. A. 2007. Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory tute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney. As a
perspective. Cambridge, MA: CABI. Research Principal (Food Systems) he is responsible for advancing the
Winslow, D. 2017. Language and Power in Social Movements: hear- theory and practice of systems-based approaches to food and nutri-
ing all the Voices in Food System Advocacy Narratives. Green tion security. His focus is on the links between human and ecological
Humanities 2: 26–52. change and how they influence food and nutrition security at different
World Forum for Food Sovereignty. 2007. Declaration of the Forum spatial and temporal scales. He completed a PhD on qualitative meth-
for Food Sovereignty, Nyéléni 2007. https://nyeleni.org/spip. ods and the application of a systems-based human ecology methodol-
php?article290. Accessed 16 July 2021. ogy for capturing how different stakeholders perceive and intervene in
Wozniacka, G. 2019, October 29. Big Food is Betting on Regenerative different food system activities. He also holds a Masters of Environ-
Agriculture to Thwart Climate Change. Civil Eats. https://civi- ment (Research) and a Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies (Sustain-
leats.com/2019/10/29/big-food-is-betting-on-regenerative-agri- ability) from the Australian National University.
culture-to-thwart-climate-change/. Accessed 16 September 2021.
WWF. 2020. Sustainable Production. WWF. https://wwf.panda.org/ Roel Plant is Adjunct Professor, Landscapes and Ecosystems, with
discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/. the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology
Accessed 10 January 2022. Sydney. Roel conducts research at the nexus of geography, ecology
Ziai, A. 2015. Development Discourse and Global History: From and economics. His work revolves around economic, social and philo-
colonialism to the sustainable development goals (1st ed.). Rout- sophical notions of “value” in environmental decision-making pro-
ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753782. cesses, with application to spatial planning, landscape governance,
land and water management, biodiversity conservation and infra-
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris- structure development. He holds a Masters of Science in Physical
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Geography (Utrecht University, 1993) and a PhD in Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences (Wageningen University, 1999).
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
[email protected]

A Genealogy of Sustainable Agriculture Narratives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Genealogy of Sustainable Agriculture Narratives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Genealogy of Sustainable Agriculture Narratives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agriculture and Human Values

A genealogy of sustainable agriculture narratives: implications for the

Accepted: 27 February 2023

Keywords Sustainable agriculture · Transformation · Regenerative agriculture · Agroecology · Sustainable

demonstrating the ongoing role of agri-food corporations in Sustainable intensification

Table 1 Summary of the origins Organic Conservation Sustainable Agroecology Regenerative

You might also like