From the recently released report by the The Rockefeller Foundation here is a sobering and yet hopeful balance sheet approach to the transition to regenerative agriculture systems. "A shift to regenerative agriculture and food systems unlocks new opportunities. The funding gap to shift conventional global food systems to regenerative is estimated between USD $250 - $430 billion annually for 10 years.6 Closing the gap would unlock USD $4.5 trillion in new investment opportunities per year (~13x the investment cost) and $5.7 trillion of costs per year saved in damages to people and the planet (~16x the investment cost).7 The risks and returns of agrifood investments must be rebalanced. Many investors are aware of climate risks, but few consistently integrate relevant risk management factors into investment processes. As a result, current assessments mischaracterise the risks and returns of conventional vs. regenerative agriculture. Consideration of the long-term profitability and resilience benefits of regenerative agriculture has yet to be factored into investor risk ratings. However, regenerative farmers and regenerative businesses do more than return financial investments. They build strong regional economies and resilient value chains, increase the availability of healthy food, and protect nature. These systemic returns regenerate the natural and social impacts highlighted above." Read the full report here https://lnkd.in/gYmPX_kQ
AP Lewis
5mo
I don't think your followers appreciate how important it is that Rockefeller Foundation is recognizing this transformation and building out the economic case. Of course its not perfect, of course its partly co-opted. But it's now moving the discussion nevertheless. BTW I spent a week in Congressional offices last month, and most ag staff are well aware that change is afoot - no matter their personal politics.
Frank Flynn
5mo
This is an overstatement and basically assertion relating a conflating (O) and natural farming potential with an undefined "everything for everyone" marketing term that co=opts actual natural systems. Moreover, (RA) and (CONf) are deeply aligned, so how to model opposing Risk - Return? Final thought: (RA) and its advocates have an alarming resistance to "Opposition Thinking" they rationalize and "ghost". What is it they are fearful of discovering? Some of that is in this report and I am interested in seeing source of funds advised, which is an interesting component during this past year of "emergence" #Nature is more accurate than (RA) and #Agroecological is clearly proven and defined where (RA) is not.
Gustavo Pazmiño
5mo
So far from what a regenerative system should be. Reg ag, it´s incomplete if it doesn´t come with a natural (wild) ecosystem included, promoted by the farmer. I support healthy soils, but if they´re willing to say that a bunch o microorganisms and a high % of organic matter (and less pesticide) is the goal, we are still in trouble.
Social Entrepreneur | Sustainability & Regenerative Agriculture, Structural Engineering, Esports
5moSo how do you feel about Rockefeller getting into regenerative agriculture? Many are signaling the commercialization and thus deterioration of the regenerative standard, similar to how Oregon and CCOF’s original Organic standard was commercialized and ruined by the FDA.