Regenerative Agriculture in Latin America Published by the Mustardseed Trust By Massimiliano Miatton and Michael Karner June 2020 About this report This internal research report was written for the Mustardseed Trust to expand its knowledge about Regenerative Agriculture (RA) in Latin America. Although a significant amount of information is beginning to emerge on RA in Western Europe, North America and Australia, there is still a lack of awareness about its degree of development in other parts of the world. To address this knowledge gap, we carried out a 9-week desktop research project from April-June 2020 based on the following research questions: ● Which actors and factors are either enhancing or inhibiting a shift in thinking and practice to regenerative agriculture in Latin America? ● Who are the most influential (male and female) people and organisations that are enhancing/driving the practice of RA in Latin America? What innovations do they present? ● What are the most influential factors that are enhancing/driving the practice of RA in Latin America? What are the most important factors that are inhibiting the practice of RA in Latin America? Disclaimer: This report focuses on continental Latin America (LA) and does not delve into RA in the Caribbean. Any opinions, points of view or conclusions expressed in this document are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views and position of any other person or organisation (unless explicitly indicated). NB: You can access the websites of the RA actors listed in this report by clicking on their logos. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Mustardseed Trust for its support in making this research possible. We would especially like to thank our interviewees for their precious orientation and insights: Elliott Powell, Ercilia Sahores, José Francisco Valle Soto, Fernando Russo, Daniele Cesano, Daniel Froebel, Rafaella Mazza, Gabriela Paraná, Stephen Sherwood, Alejandro Solano, Joe Brewer, and Luis Camargo, Eduard Muller and Melina Angel, convenors of the Regenerative Communities Network Latin America. Thank you also to all the individuals who provided us with precious guidance and ideas: Koen van Seijen, John D. Liu, Yonah Berger, Jonas Steinfeld and Matteo Mazzola. 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Enhancing and Inhibiting factors for RA in Latin America 8 3. Livestock 13 4. Agroforestry 20 5. Broad-acre annual cropping 29 6. Funding for Regenerative Agriculture 35 7. Regenerative Agriculture Networks 41 8. Conclusions 49 References 55 3 An increasing number of scientific publications recognise that the Earth has entered a new human-induced geological epoch, the Anthropocene, in which human activities and pressures on natural systems are driving the Earth’s climate and other crucial biophysical processes beyond any “safe operating space” (Rockström et al., 2009). These “ecological overshoots” are growing together with a series of “socio-economical shortfalls” on major global 1 challenges such as extreme poverty and inequality, healthcare, social justice, gender equality, and other United Nations Sustainable Introduction Development Goals (Raworth, 2017). Regenerative agriculture (RA) aims to address both the environmental and socio-economic aspects of this planetary emergency by redesigning human systems to function from scarcity to abundance. It is rapidly gaining momentum as a worldview, a body of knowledge, a series of principles and practices and a set of social movements. In this study, we will delve into the numerous ways in which RA is unfolding and innovating in Latin America. The common denominator behind all regenerative approaches is the intention to move beyond sustainability (adapted from Mang & Reed, 2012). 4 Defining Regenerative Agriculture One of the first documented uses of “regenerative agriculture” dates back to the early 1980s. Robert Rodale, son of J.I. Rodale, founder of the pioneering organic agriculture Rodale Institute, defined RA as “a holistic systems approach to farming that encourages continual innovation for environmental, social, economic and spiritual well-being” (Rodale Institute, 2014). This definition goes beyond conventional understandings of farming and sustainable agriculture, i.e. the simple “sustainment” of the land, to designate the active regeneration of its resources through agriculture itself. In this configuration, land managers go from acting on nature to acting as nature. Since its early beginnings, the concept and practice of regeneration has evolved to encompass a plurality of meanings, practices and actors, and still eludes any precise definition. Indeed, as Soloviev and Landua (2016) suggest, defining RA goes against the very spirit of regeneration itself. “To define” stems from the Latin de-finire (i.e. “completely bounding, limiting, bringing to an end”), and can therefore not apply to an approach which targets the “health, vitality, and evolutionary capability of whole living systems”. These authors nonetheless identify a series of “levels” at which RA actors are operating, that offer insights into the different existing perspectives on regeneration. Most agree that a regenerative land management approach is based on four cornerstones (for a detailed overview, see Merfield, 2019): ● Minimum soil disturbance: building rich organic soils by leveraging the photosynthetic ability of plants to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide. This increases the soil’s organic matter and biological health, as well as its capacity to act as a net carbon sink. ● Fostering biological diversity: ensured by intercropping and complex rotations in both time and space, with a focus on perennials and on closing nutrient cycles. ● Maintaining constant soil cover using cover crops and a combination of the approaches above. ● Integrating livestock and production adopting a stock management approach that takes the physiological needs of plants, animals, and the farm as a whole into account. A series of best practices A shift from a mechanistic world view to a thriving Through holistic design, best regenerative culture, which practices are combined in an implies a deep understanding integrative system that of the human history and enables the mimicking of Integrated rootedness into a specific Evolutionary Regeneration natural ecosystems. The farm’s landscape place. This is based on a pattern ecology determines the form of as... design multi-dimensional and its agricultural enterprises, multi-generational with the ultimate goal of perspective, conveyed through creating an Earth-as-Eden pattern languages of songs, landscape. stories, rituals, etc. Applied living systems thinking Different entities are intertwined into an ecosystem of regenerative enterprises, operating as a decentralised network in which wealth goes beyond purely monetary terms to embrace all the 5 different forms of capital and human exchange. Adapted from Soloviev and Landua (2016) Research Methodology Our inclusion criteria In our view (based on C self-reported impact data, number of citations in RA-related sources, or expert indications), the project/actor is innovating The project/actor uses the and/or mainstreaming RA in term “regenerative” to Latin America. describe its activities. If not, it is nonetheless clearly connected to RA initiatives A B or networks. The project/actor is engaged in RA or regenerative activities in at least one Latin American country. Our research process Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Online desktop research and Snowball sampling to identify Clustering the entries based on literature review (including further initiatives falling under their field of action and filtering academic and grey literature, criteria A and B, combined them according to criteria C, while websites, social media), with online interviews of Latin identifying the most innovative consultations with RA experts American RA frontrunners and/or influential actors in our and practitioners from our identified during Phase 1. view. networks. The limitations of our study Our research was conducted exclusively online over a short, 2 month period and over a very broad geographical zone. This limited our capacity to carry out an exhaustive analysis of RA in Latin America backed up by fieldwork and in-depth interactions with local RA actors. The virtual nature of our research did not allow us to assess which RA initiatives are truly applying RA principles and techniques in their daily activities, as opposed to projects that may be using regenerative terminology mainly as a means of communication. We can realistically expect numerous relevant RA projects to be underrepresented or absent from the internet, especially those that lack the means or interest to develop an online presence. 6 Structure & Framework Livestock Chapters _________________________ This report focuses on RA projects Networks Agroforestry and initiatives that are explored in the these 5 thematic chapters. Since there is significant overlap in RA approaches and activities, attributing a project to a single field of action was not always possible. This classification is not Broad-acre intended to be a strict annual categorisation, but rather a Funding cropping functional layout that allows for a clear and structured narrative. Food System Level 1: increase the efficiency of conventional 1 practices to reduce the use of scarce or Levels environmentally-detrimental inputs. __________________ RA innovations are summarised according to the level of food Level 2: substitute resource-depleting practices system they are leveraging at and