Food companies' regenerative ag strategies 'lack ambition'

Dairy and meat firms use regenerative farming practices in ways that don’t always take the bigger picture into account, a report into the climate strategies of 30 food and agriculture multinationals suggests.

Developed by non-profit NewClimate Institute and funded by the IKEA Foundation, the report (see 'sources' below) delves into how food majors including Danone and Nestlé are leveraging regenerative agriculture to reduce their climate impact – and whether these strategies stretch far enough.

The authors found that 24 of the 30 multinationals mention regenerative agriculture in their sustainability communication;18 definite it; 8 have quantitative targets; and 8 are piloting projects. However, corporate definitions of regenerative ag tend to be 'broad' and when it comes to quantifying results, few companies have frameworks in place. This suggests that regenerative agriculture - as seen through the lens of food and agriculture firms - ‘lacks the ambition necessary to significantly reduce pollution, environmental degradation, emissions or even increase soil carbon sequestration’.

What's holding things back?

The lack of a single, science-backed definition for regenerative agriculture is the biggest stumbling block to achieving meaningful change, the report suggests.

This is because companies tend to treat regenerative agriculture as part of their wider GHG emissions reduction strategies, but often don’t spell out how they would measure the impact of regenerative practices such as soil carbon sequestration. For example, the research found that only 8 companies in the sample specified targets and frameworks relating to regenerative agriculture.

Should SBTi’s FLAG guidance be updated?

The report also questions the impact of rotational grazing, itself linked to improved soil carbon sequestration, on enteric methane emissions reduction. “The claim that carbon sequestration in pasture soils neutralizes methane emissions from livestock is misleading given that regenerative grazing practices will only lead to a small amount of carbon being sequestered in soils, and so are not a silver bullet for the meat and dairy industry,” the authors stated.

But according to SBTi’s FLAG guidance, companies are allowed to use land-based carbon removals – such as carbon sequestered in the soil – towards their GHG emission reductions and net-zero targets.

This is ‘problematic’ according to the NewClimate report, because emission removals ‘do not equate emission reductions’. “Both…are needed to align the industry with 1.5C pathways,” the authors stated. “Land-based CDR such as soil carbon sequestration and tree-planting should supplement rather than substitute the necessary…emission reductions.”

What regenerative measures do dairy companies rely on?

Analyzing dairy majors’ regenerative ag strategy papers, the report found that companies including Danone, Nestlé, Unilever, Arla Foods and FrieslandCampina emphasized the role of increasing carbon sequestration; and all besides Arla linked carbon removals with reductions in GHG emissions.

However, the report also found that the term ‘regenerative dairy’ was often tied to an increase in the use of regenerative feed crops, which made it ‘highly unclear’ how GHG emissions reductions would be achieved.

Meanwhile, only Danone and Nestlé’s strategies included requiring farmers to measure soil organic carbon levels through sampling; and just Nestlé requires farmers to show a measured improvement in carbon dioxide removal levels, though those farms are a minority among the company’s suppliers, the report observed.

“Whereas regenerative agriculture was meant as a concept to redesign the entire agricultural system through, in part, a focus on soil health, companies are currently using it as a substitution measure or as an add-on to current agricultural systems,” the report’s authors commented.

“For instance, companies do not always include reducing or eliminating chemical inputs in their definitions or frameworks of regenerative agriculture. (…) Those who do mention the need to reduce fertiliser and pesticide use most often do not specify further measurable targets.”

Overall, the report describes the uptake of regenerative ag practices as ‘a positive shift’ in food companies’ strategic outlook, but warned these practices were yet to yield a real transformation in food production practices.

In addition, the authors found that corporate strategies need to better embrace regenerative agriculture’s focus on holistic transformation at farm level, instead of picking out certain practices and leaving out others.

“Companies are using watered-down definitions of regenerative agriculture, while continuing business as usual. Regenerative agriculture tends to give an outsized importance to soil carbon sequestration, while key measures like reducing pesticides or fertilisers are left out.

“Beef and dairy companies are also using regenerative agriculture to distract from the need to reduce livestock numbers. Taken together, these concerns risk undermining the credibility and effectiveness of regenerative agriculture initiatives while the focus on regenerative agriculture may distract from the urgent need to significantly reduce the sector’s GHG emissions.”

Source:

Navigating Regenerative Agriculture in Corporate Climate Strategies: From key emissions reduction measure to greenwashing strategy
September 2024
NewClimate.org​