Fwd: Does Regenerative Agriculture Need a Rosetta Stone?

[Jon Schull]

Hughe Locke asks (below): 

Why does the regenerative agriculture movement have more than 150 competing frameworks, and what happens if no one resolves that chaos before governments and corporations lock in their own definitions?

 

Claire Brosnihan, Tim Tensen and I have just published the first of a three-part series that addresses these questions. We examine the scale of the definitional problem, the risk of what we call definitional capture, and why a new global outcomes framework — the Regen10 Outcomes Framework — may represent the best chance the movement has to establish shared language before that window closes. There are two ways to access the article:

 

OPTION 1 > read the SUMMARY on LinkedIn and click to the full article if you want more.

 

OPTION 2 > go direct to the FULL ARTICLE on Substack (free, and no account needed).

Ananda and I (immediately below) reflect on the problem, as we prepare to develop ERA's own MRV guidelines.  ERA members, you are the experts.  What are your thoughts?

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ananda Fitzsimmons <anand...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 at 10:54
Subject: Re: Does Regenerative Agriculture Need a Rosetta Stone?
To: Jon Schull <jsc...@gmail.com>

Yes we could certainly invite him. There is indeed a big conversation happening globally about how to define regenerative agriculture. The tensions are about how to be inclusive while having the standard really mean something. Lessons learned from organic certification: a rigorous standard was applied, you are in or you are out, nowhere in between. The organic movement has grown because more consumers value organic certification. Yet in spite of that, less than 5% of farms have organic certification. If our goal is to create landscape level change, a strict bar that demands huge changes in how a farm functions all at once is not realistic for most farmers. Instead we want to recognize that going towards regen ag is a continuous journey of gradual improvement. That is the challenge of communication the value to consumers: it doesn't have a clear black and white message.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 10:36 AM Jon Schull <jsc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I know Hugh Locke; we could  invite him to present at a Town Hall meeting.   We should ask ourselves now how not to end up as  YAF (Yet Another Framework) .  

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Hugh Locke <hughc...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 at 11:45
Subject: Does Regenerative Agriculture Need a Rosetta Stone?
To: Jon Schull <jsc...@gmail.com>

Hi Jon,

 

Why does the regenerative agriculture movement have more than 150 competing frameworks, and what happens if no one resolves that chaos before governments and corporations lock in their own definitions?

 

Claire Brosnihan, Tim Tensen and I have just published the first of a three-part series that addresses these questions. We examine the scale of the definitional problem, the risk of what we call definitional capture, and why a new global outcomes framework — the Regen10 Outcomes Framework — may represent the best chance the movement has to establish shared language before that window closes. There are two ways to access the article:

 

OPTION 1 > read the SUMMARY on LinkedIn and click to the full article if you want more.

 

OPTION 2 > go direct to the FULL ARTICLE on Substack (free, and no account needed).

 

Let us know if you agree, if you think we have missed the mark, or if we have left out any important examples of progress.

 

Regards,

 

HUGH

 

Hugh Locke

Smallholder Farmers Alliance | Hugh’s Substack Channel 

--

Ananda Fitzsimmons

                        Author, Speaker, Advocate for regenerative systems

                Auteure, conférencière et avocate des systèmes régénératifs

                                      www.anandafitzsimmons.com

                                               438-820-1760