How do regen monitoring systems compare?

Hello, welcome to Farmgate. I'm Finlo Costain, the editor of89.com Corporations, governments and customers increasingly want to support regen farming practices. But without credible verification systems, the term regenerative risks dilution and misuse. A new report, the Regen Compass version 1.0 developed by the European alliance for Regenerative Agriculture, offers the first comprehensive farmer led evaluation evaluation of the systems designed to identify and distinguish genuine regeneration while remaining accessible and valuable to the farmers actually doing the work. The report evaluated 29 monitoring, reporting and verification systems and to discuss it I'm joined by report author Simon Kramer, co founder and policy steward at the European alliance for Regenerative Agriculture, by regen farmer Claire Hill from Plant and Farm and by Adele Jones from Rooted Strategies, who worked for many years with the Sustainable Food Trust on the Global Farm Metric. Welcome all. Simon, tell us about the report. What does it do and why was it needed?

0:05

I think first of all, what does it do we will only figure out as we grow forward and I think it's more like it tries something. So we have been since 1/2 years already reflecting the issues. You have been also lining out in the beginning, while also always meeting a lot of confusion, let's say, of many people who are not so nerdy into the differences and maybe have built their own understanding of the differences on how different actors use the term. So we wanted to create an overview really, or a beginning of an overview just for people to have an easier access. And as we also discuss quite at length in the report, we hope very much that it's not in any sense taken as a judgment because we really believe it like a discussion starter, like a yeast starter, in the terms of still figuring out how we can come to a joint understanding in some ways

1:07

is it a sort of celebration of the fact that there are 29 different systems out there and it's not about sort of pointing a finger and saying this one's better than another, it's about trying to sort of say, well, you know, where are the gaps, where are the holes? Where, where's best practice in this?

2:14

Yes, I would say so. And also there's Many more than 29 just after publication now. They have already reached out people to us where we had to make them understand that we didn't exclude them for any reason, but capacity or lack of awareness, let's say, and I think exactly as you said, the whole movement of regeneration comes with this new capacity of inclusivity to as many farmers as possible. And we wanted to keep that appreciation, appreciation and celebration of every steps on the journey and a good direction also in the way we did this report

2:31

and the evaluation was farmer led, as I mentioned. What does that mean? How did that work?

3:10

As I said, for one and a half years, for example, on our annual gathering more than one year ago, we had on all around the world basically the back then what we had co designed with the farmers as possible assessment criteria and lenses. And basically we rediscussed this the ways in which we wanted to assess the MRVs together with the farmers. Then when we had them more or less clear together with these broad thresholds, we had two wonderful team members which basically organized all the information collection and the preparation. And then we had farmer committee going through the assessments on different MRV standards.

3:16

And so when we talk about it being farmer led, can you give me an indication of the number of farmers that were contributing for, you know, on each of those? So if we were to sort of pick up on McCain or regenefied, do you have lots of different farmers all talking about their experience of these particular systems?

4:05

No. And we also say that clearly in the report there will be something for the future which would of course be much better, but which also takes up financial capacity and time of farmers that we didn't really have in our auto production of this report. So I would say in the design of the methodology maybe in total there were some 20, 25 farmers involved. By no way. We have assessed each MRV with farmers who are part in those MRVs, which would make it much better, of course. And then it was a committee of seven or eight farmers, allow me to lie, who in depth went through the pre produced assessments from our team through the lens they had co decided.

4:23

I see. So it's a committee of farmers that's taking the information that's been provided presented by those different MRV organizations and they're assessing one against another. It's interesting. I understand the methodology, thank you. And who's the report actually aimed at? Is it, is it for farmers or for companies and organizations that you've assessed?

5:07

I don't really think it's so much for farmers. Farmers maybe are too smart already for the information we present there. I think of at least, or maybe that's also a bias, let's say working with a lot of pioneering farmers. But it's mainly for all the fluff that is kind of created and the confusion in the very limited knowledge on because we always still say, as you said in the opening, we are missing the universal definition but we can write up 100 definitions in one sentence words. But what's really missing is an operationalized universal definition, so to say. And these MRV standards are operationalized sustainability metrics on those farms. And yeah, looking into these I think mostly for stakeholders, policymakers, industries, so people in the agri food system coming in contact to have an easier overview and and then as a discussion starter for the broader movement and everyone in those MRVs working already for many years to maybe come together more strongly to then in the future be able to draw a clear line where we can say this shouldn't be legitimate to be referred to as regenerac while at the same time being as inclusive as possible to everyone who's generally engaging on the journey.

5:29

Thanks Simon, thanks for that background. Adele, it was you that first put me onto this report and I think in the social media post that I saw on LinkedIn you were feeling pretty enthusiastic about it and obviously you've got a great deal of experience in this area, particularly around developing metrics themselves. What did you make of the report?

6:54

Thanks Finn. Though I was really pleased when I read the report and it really reflects conversations that have been now going on for a while in the community, particularly in Europe, about, you know, what is regenerative agriculture? And this question endlessly comes up, should we try and define regenerative agriculture? And my feeling always is no. It goes against the principle of what we're trying to achieve here, which is a great spectrum of approaches for rebuilding things like soil health, having clean water, good animal welfare, good health and well being of workers on farm and of course those who eat the food or products coming from a farm. And we should really be thinking about those outcomes that we want to achieve and aligning around those rather than just fiddling about with words really, because I think it misses the point with regenerative agriculture, which is a much kind of more of a spectrum approach, less, less binary. And that's not to say any of the binary approaches of the past, like organic are not still useful because they definitely are as procurement standards. But actually I think regeneration takes so many different form and is entirely context specific. And so what I really liked about this report is effectively it's saying, look, there's so much great activity going on and here is the spectrum of approaches, let's look at those and understand where we can align around outcomes. So that's why I felt really encouraged is that it wasn't trying to create a definition of words for regenerative agriculture because I think it's just too narrow for what we're Trying to do.

7:13

Interesting to sort of compare what you're saying there with the approach. And I'm just thinking of that sort of initial matrix where you've essentially got a traffic light system which is, you know, kind of green is good, red you would generally think is bad. And does that entirely work with what you've just sort of suggested there, Adele, that it is about recognizing the differences between these various different systems rather than trying to bring everyone together under a single system.

8:43

I think, I think we should think about the principles that underlie what we believe a regenerative system to be moving towards are. And from my mind, and these were, these were developed by the Sustainable Food Trust when I was there. There are really three things when I think about regenerative agriculture. Firstly, taking a holistic view. So looking at the whole farm system rather than just one single element like carbon or biodiversity, farming in harmony with nature. So trying to produce food or commodities alongside very much in tandem with nature, rather than separate from it, obeying the law of return or the circular economy. So trying to move towards more closed loop farming systems which are less inputs and wasting less from the system, and recycling wherever possible, particularly with nutrients, but also with materials as well on the farms. And finally moving towards more of a biological approach for producing food. As we said, it's not, you know, regenerative agriculture is not binary in terms of you mustn't use this or you must use that or it shouldn't be. But I think ultimately we all agree that moving towards more of a biological approach which uses less inputs, as per the point before, is key. So I think the traffic light system in this report adheres to whether or not these tools or systems or frameworks adhere to those sorts of principles. Rather than saying this is good and this is bad. I think we just need to take into account a series of underlying values when it comes to regenerative agriculture rather than this is good and this is bad.

9:10

I'm interested to sort of move on. You talked earlier on about harmonisation and there are lots of people, you know, across the piece, whether that's, you know, people within companies or governments, certainly from a sort of general public perspective that are calling for harmonization of standards, are saying we don't understand what regenerative means or regenerative just means anything to anybody. And so is harmonization necessary? And if it is, what is it that's preventing that from happening? And what form should it take? Because I take on board, you know, what you've said, that we don't need a Single definition, it misses the, the point. But what is it that can be harmonised?

10:43

So I think rather than harmonising standards per se, because I think standards are still important for making procurement decisions, whether whether that's organic or pasture fed livestock or whatever it might be, I think those are still important for particular companies that are buying food to be able to decipher what they want to buy. I think what we need to harmonize around is the outcomes and how we measure those outcomes that we want to achieve. And I think that's why there's still quite a lot of confusion because we are getting too hung up on are we talking about climate friendly farming or nature friendly farming or agroecology or regenerative? And actually in my mind it doesn't matter as long as we agree that we're, you know, we are working towards better soil health. And what does that mean? How do we measure it in a clear and consistent way so that when companies, organizations are making claims about regenerative agriculture, which I do believe we should be able to do, we can know and trust and see transparently that that that's what's going on and this is how it's been measured. So I think aligning around those high level outcomes and, and ideally how we measure those, it might be slightly different in different places, according to different contexts and geographies. We always use the example of earthworms, for example, being a great proxy of soil health in some places, but in very dry desert places it's of course you don't have earthworms and in fact it's things like termites which are really important. So context is key, but thinking about what are the metrics we should use to decipher soil health and then aligning around those outcomes is where I see harmonisation to be really important.

11:20

So from that perspective you was talking about the improvement in soil health being the key outcome, but actually the particular metrics that are being used in different contexts, the different metrics that are being used will differ depending on the context, the terrain, the climate that those farm systems exist in.

12:48

Yeah, exactly. And that's where the great array of different tools that are out there, and many of which have been highlighted in this, in this report, are really helpful because they can provide the context that we need in these situations because there is no tool that will be able to help all farms understand their sustainability. It does need to be quite different for different scenarios. And so I think it's brilliant that this plethora of different approaches exist. We just need this high Level architecture for understanding the outcomes. And that's what I've been working on through the Global Farm Metric. And that links to another project called Region 10. And there's the Sigh Regenerating Together framework that lots of food companies are coming around. So these things are starting to coalesce and I feel actually really positive about the harmonization journey we're on now. Could do it going a bit quicker, but we are getting there.

13:04

Yeah. Yeah. Lovely. Claire. I'm just sort of wondering from a farmer perspective, whether the report feels helpful to you because Simon said that you, as a farmer, you're clearly not the audience. That's interesting intended, but it strikes me that there. There are quite a lot of useful things in there for farmers.

13:53

Yeah, absolutely. I think one that you mentioned, the summary table with the red amber green at the beginning, is just something that's really useful because there are so many options out there. If farmers are wanting to engage in a scheme of some description. It's like, how do you know the differences? And that's the first time that all of that's been articulated. Even if maybe you're sort of suggesting some of the color coding might be a little simplistic, it's way better than any other information we might have out there. So even I just found that fascinating because I'm familiar with many on the list, but not all. And I don't know the nuance in detail because I haven't sat down to do the work. So that is great. And farmers often ask, should I do regenerate outcomes? Should I do that? And I'm like, I don't know. So for just being able to point people in a direction, I think it's great. And the other aspect is that I feel like, as a farmer, that feels like I am attempting to regenerate our land, our ecosystem, ourselves, our biodiversity. What I really love about the report is what it also subtly does, is shifts the narrative. And this was used in a social media, actually a post which was supporting the launch of the report, which is, should we stop asking, are you regenerative? And ask, what are you regenerating? And I just think that one sentence alone sums up so much of it because it really does start to focus the conversation and particularly I find as well, increasingly, like the abbreviation, the term reg Ag. As soon as you're saying, are you reggae? Are you doing reg Ag? I think you've really lost the essence of that. This is about regeneration. And I really support Adele's point there about, you know, harmonization. This is all about the outcomes, about what we're regenerating. So I find that really helpful as a kind of like helping to shift the narrative and really focus on what we are regenerating. And as an AERA Pharma member, I joined last year and I'm really proud to be part of it. I just think it's such a great movement. This report is done by others and it is amazing. I love it. But I also like that underlying essence of the way that EIRA describes regenerative agriculture. Is that regenerating. Regenerating forms of agriculture. And I just think that's another really useful terminology as well. So just seeing more of that type of thing coming, I think is really helpful for those of us that are focused on regeneration and for those that are not and are maybe like, I want to be regen, because it sounds like I should be, but without really understand what it means. It's a great way with that. We need a definition. And it highlights in the report. You know, Oscar Wilde says, as soon as you define something, you restrict it. So just that kind of focus on thinking about, oh, I want to be more regenerative, what shall I regenerate? I think that is just a really useful thing for helping people get going.

14:08

It's that idea of journey, isn't it, which I think is really fascinating. And I think probably because more and more people are becoming aware of regenerative agriculture, they're hearing about it in one form or another, whether those are farmers that haven't yet fully engaged, or whether it's, you know, customers, through the general public, the media. There is this tendency to try and assess and measure regen based on the previous paradigm, in terms of knowing precisely what it is, you are regenerative or you're not, okay, you're regenerative, therefore, what have you done? Rather than understanding that regeneration is something, you know, that continues and continues and continues, and that it's not a destination. And what I found as well, and of course for yourself as a farmer, but also as a trainer of regenerative farmers, I found that the language that was used in the report distilled very nicely. It was almost like a kind of, you know, a refresher course, as know you, to the various different elements of regeneration and how we should think about them.

16:42

Exactly. That's what I think. It's a. There's nothing out there like it. And it's a great place to go for people that are, yes, starting off in their journey, but also those that are further along with it. It provides Some validation, like, oh, okay, just because I haven't subscribed to some defined standard of doing something, but I am going in the right direction and this gives me that validation. So, yeah, I think it's great from

17:37

that point of view.

17:59

And what sort of challenges have you found when you're actually trying to communicate regeneration to customers when you're selling produce?

17:59

Well, yeah, I mean, it's, it's difficult. So, yeah, we have, we do a farmers market and we've got a website. And so when we're selling, people, like most people say, what even is this regenerative thing? And so, you know, it's an opportunity for a conversation. Like I intentionally use it as our, you know, on our materials for that reason, because it starts a conversation. We are also organically certified, so I have that as our kind of backstop because we wanted to be clear with our. Be able to be clear with our customers that we farm regeneratively without chemicals. Definitely targeting a focus on the biological style of farming. So that's why we have that. But we use the term regenerative. So it opens up a lot of conversations about what that, yeah, what that really means. And that's, for me, that's, that's great. But yeah, there's not huge understanding because look at us, we're all having this debate here about all the different aspects to it. So it's not easy for people.

18:06

Adele picked up earlier on that sort of idea. You know, what is regenerative agriculture? How does it compare with agricultural, nature friendly farmers, farming, etc. And therefore the outcomes become the important thing. And I was doing a live panel event just a couple of weeks ago where I think most of the panelists and certainly members of the audience were all saying, well, I'm not sure that I get on with regenerative agriculture. I don't like this. And there is this sort of backlash that I'm coming into or sort of noticing more and more at the moment because there is the feeling that too many big companies are using the term or too many farmers are using it without really understanding or defining it. And I wonder from your perspective as a farmer, again, within, I mean, albeit that you're within pretty direct supply chains. Does being part of a certification scheme help with that conversation, do you think?

18:53

I think if, yeah, we supply directly. So I don't feel like we need to be part of a certification scheme for our form of regenerating agriculture, but I can see why, you know, as the current food system stands, I would be advocating for you know a more direct type of food system for people to be more connected with their food for health reasons and all the other things. But with a large scale globalized food system that we have, I can see why certification is necessary.

19:44

Simon, I want to come back to you and ask you about the people you know, the organizations that did particularly well and those who did slightly less well. I suppose within that sort of traffic lights matrix at the beginning. Obviously later on within the profiles there's a lot more, more detail and a lot more nuance. But before I do, I just wonder if you could reflect on any elements of the conversation we've had so far.

20:10

Yeah, I mean one, I don't really like to pick out guys because a, I have a bias and then and so forth but I think also we mentioned it so I for example personally think Regenerate Outcomes is doing a great job and it just looks not so positive in our report. But just because the assessment lens is a different of starting. No, they started basically with I think they have one of if not the best soil organic carbon program but they didn't build it for let's say region certification or so forth. Then we have very great. And I think in general when we talked about outcomes now I think the integration of social economic indicators or outcomes is still something we have a lot of work or understanding to do and Regenerate Organic Certified is doing great stuff there. I think for example, if we look really in how can we meaningfully look at quantified simple outcomes on agroecological and economic indicators? Agrippurpose has done a really great advance just to pick on a few but we had a big learning also. But I think that's going to come to your next question.

20:31

When you were sort of looking across those 29 different organizations and the way that they've, they've kind of, you know, embraced regenerative agriculture in their, in their verification systems. What was the thing that you felt was most lacking? And I'm kind of picking up on your previous answer there and wondering if that sort of social element was the thing that still needs the most work where there's probably quite a lot of focus on environmental outcomes, a fair bit of focus on economic outcomes, perhaps a bit less on the social outcomes.

21:42

Yes, a bit less is even underwhelming also I don't think it's so problematic because it takes a lot more to build this in and so forth. But yeah, progressively I personally would love to see this whole journey approach which we are understanding so well by now in terms of soil regeneration, let's say also in all the other regards. I mean for example I have got to known region farmers in Brazil managing 250,000 hectares showing great results on soil, on reduction of pesticides sites and so forth, but still having problems of giving 1 hectare of land back to some indigenous people for doing their self food sufficiency. So I think also in these political economic, socio economic indicators, if we can integrate the journey, maybe that can yield some nice fruits for the true resilience and well being of our agri food systems.

22:14

And I know that you, you've said that you don't particularly want to pick out the best and the worst, that that's not what it's about. And I'm certainly not going to ask you to name names of who you think is the worst, but I wonder if you could sort of reflect on one or two of the companies that you think did really really well in your sort of assessment and just talk about why they came out better than other companies.

23:16

Can I maybe instead share a big learning we had through the report doing? Because I'm really hesitant a few I think in the answer before I took a few let's say on on single parts of the assessment. I think what we learned a lot in terms of when we think of the harmonization of indicators is really the methodological thinking and the operationalization of the criteria with regard to the journey. Because without having to point out anyone in particular, what we learned only through the work of assessing all that. I personally wasn't so aware of it, although I'm within the movement for quite some years. Is that the same innovation that comes from being able to have a journey approach? So people who are not so perfect yet can be already reaping the fruits of appreciation because they are improving over time and in their context can also be used for very sophisticatedly hiding the greenwashing. And I think that is something where we can grow in the future. In the next steps when we think of harmonizing of outcomes, I think we can really come to a point now where we can allow the full diversity of indicators like we have no need to prescription. But as Adela said, for example, you need good enough indicators in all of these three brackets and then you need a good enough methodology on the journey and then everything else can be completely context specific and in the diversity of the standards of which some are in the report.

23:41

Adele, coming back to you on the difference between outcomes and metrics or how we sort of assess these things together and thinking about the global farm metric One of my observations of the global farm metric is that there are an awful lot of metrics within it, and that actually, when we're talking about regeneration, if we're thinking of environmental elements or social elements, economic elements, then it ought to be possible to boil these things down to a relatively small number of things. I mean, you mentioned earthworms or termites and the way that they operate as proxies. But there must be sort of proxy measures out there that can be really good at demonstrating something and communicating something to customers, whether those customers are big companies that are buying from farmers through sort of extended contracts or whether they're through direct sales.

25:21

Absolutely. And I'm really excited for what's to come in terms of the ways that we collect information and consolidate data. And the approach we took with the global farm metric was to be exceptionally rigorous and take us a kind of complete view, as we possibly could, of what constitutes farm sustainability and how to measure it. Because we very much believe that you should simplify based on rigour, rather than starting with something very simple which doesn't really capture what you need. And so really I see this more as a communication and sort of technology problem or opportunity, you could say, rather than the metrics and framework itself. The global farm metric is a complete synthesis we see as what farm sustainability should be. But it doesn't mean to say that you need to collect every single one of those pieces of information, or perhaps there will be tools or satellites or our fancy smartphone apps, which will be able to do that much more quickly and efficiently for farmers in future. And I think it's really about how we tell the story of farm sustainability based on these harmonized outcomes and how we let the data tell the story. But fundamentally, I do feel that it's up to us, as the people who are very much in this problem day to day, to really understand that complexity and embrace it, basically because it is problematic, complicated, all the interactions and dependencies that come from that. So I don't think we should shy away from that, but I think it's then up to us to communicate it more simply and create tools that allow this process to be really easy for farmers. And for as much. What's the word with things happen automatically. But I think that's great. But I also think we. We need to ground truth as much as possible. So we might use satellites to gain an understanding more quickly of a bigger area, but they ground truthing is also really important. But yeah, we need to make sure farmers aren't burdened and people aren't confused. And that's, that's our job.

26:11

And at a global level, do you think that that harmonization is taking place across the piece? Because I know that, you know, through the work with the global Farm metric, you were having these, you know, these, these conversations at a planetary level. And I'm thinking of, you know, for the likes of Mars or McCain or Nestle, obviously there is a reason for each of those in having, each of those companies in having their own bespoke systems, in being able to sort of identify a point of difference from another company that's delivering something similar. And then at the same time you've got certification systems that are very much kind of pharma focused, like regenerate outcomes. And all of these are sort of gathered together within the Regen Compass report. Do you think that there is a general coming together harmonization of global level around the outcomes themselves, even though the way that those are measured is going to vary from company to company?

28:09

Yes, I do. And the project I was involved with which really took that conversation to a global level was called regen10. And we used the global Pharma metric framework to understand how those common outcome measures, wherever possible, could be used at a high level all over the world. And I believe that framework was taken tested in 11 countries last year. And a report which details the framework is coming up very soon, which is exciting. But I think ultimately there is actually very, very little data on outcomes being collected at the moment. And largely until now, these conversations have been quite theoretical. So yes, big companies and organizations might have a different set of criteria when they're talking about regenerative agriculture, but really that's, it's quite theoretical at the moment. And when it comes down to actually collecting that information on the ground, you realize that even a farmer that's selling to one company like Mars, they might be growing cocoa for Mars. They are also going to have an interaction with some form of financial institution or a bank manager. They're also going to have an interaction with the government. They also might have an interaction with a utilities company that's operating in the area. And that's where it starts to become incredibly burdensome. And I think the farmers will just start to rebel. Basically, if all of those actors are saying use a different framework and use a different tool, it's just not going to work. And what will also happen is that each of those tools and each of those frameworks will pull the farmer in a slightly different direction and then regeneration just won't happen because it's also confusing and asking them to do different things. Whereas actually if we can come together around this architecture of a high level framework, it will in theory mean that each of these different stakeholders can start asking these farmers for the same questions, albeit for slightly different reasons, and then make sure they're all pushing the farmer in the same direction. So I think when it comes down to actually collecting this information and implementing these sorts of outcome measures on the ground, it just won't work to have a million different frameworks. So I'm kind of in this big mess at the moment with a pilot I'm working on also called Routes to Regen Claire, but work with lots of companies of different sorts and you just realize that you cannot do this with many, many, many different frameworks. You have to have a high level architecture under which all these different tools for different purposes exist.

29:00

Simon, I'm guessing that part of the function of this report is as an advocacy device. Are you planning to work? I think you've already indicated this. You see this as being work in progress. Are you going to be working with the companies and the bodies that you have assessed in order to help them with developing their monitoring and reporting and verification systems and with assisting that harmonization that we've been talking about around outcomes?

31:28

Yeah, we have been starting further on basically collecting the learnings and the broader movement because as you lined out, I mean, SAI framework is doing this and is of course very much powerful with, I don't know, 189 of the biggest corporations of the global food regime. I think that if we can use this kind of as further growth of the differentiated unity in the global region act movement, then we can maybe come to such as the organics also did over the 80s and 90s of family of standards. And I think it's very important. I wanted, I had a beautiful reference because Claire said so many are still asking when region, what is it? And it's kind of a door opener. But if we think of our social collective intelligence, you know, I'm here in sicily and in 1848 the farmers rose up against the feudal lord based on a pamphlet in which they were calling for universal regeneration, literally. So we have been at a consciousness level where we were much broader in knowing what is regeneration. And hopefully this is part of the wave that's disseminating it again.

31:53

And Claire, just finally let me come back to you and I just wonder if there are things that you'd like to reflect on from the conversation that we've had, you know, about that interface really between farmers and academia and Policy work and those sort of larger companies about how we, how we achieve that harmonization and the role that this report might play in that process. Just to give you a big question to end on.

33:09

Crikey, that's a big question. So I think the main role that the report plays is it's for the first time a lot of things that. So Adele said, you know, a lot have been theoretical is everything down in one place. And what's great as well is it's not. Its intention is not a one off report. So this is done to be reviewed and amended and changed and to grow and evolve, which is in itself an act of regeneration. That's what I think. It's great. It gives us all something to have a conversation about instead of referring to or being able to be said, oh well. We so often find in the larger food system there's a. Oh well, until it's defined, you know, it's an excuse not to do anything. And this is a great report to say no excuses, there are no excuses. We unfortunately, as Simon Rett mentions, over the last hundred or two hundred years have lost connection with what it means to regenerate. And it is just about relearning that. It feels challenging at times. So this gives us. And what's great about it is it cuts through everybody. So farmers, farmers selling directly, farmers supplying into big food systems, the big food actors themselves, government. I think this is a great place for people to be able to center around. And the other bit I really like, which we haven't talked about but is the bit about it kind of identifies who the main actors are. And it's just great to see farmers at the top of the list as the ones who are doing the most on this topic. And that feels everybody talks about it being a grassroots movement or farmer up. And you know, possibly one of the problems with the food system over the last few hundred years has been that it's not been that. And we've tried to, to apply these blanket things everywhere and the unintended consequences is degradation. We didn't intend it, but that's what we've got. So actually just farmers taking agency again, not relying on everybody else to tell them what to do, the seed companies, etc. Is just a great thing. So yeah, for me this report sits as a center of a conversation that takes us to the next level in regeneration.

33:35

Fantastic. Well, it's a great place to leave it. So let's do that. That's all we have time for. Anyway, I'd like to thank my guest guests Claire Hill, Adele Jones and Simon Kramer. If you've enjoyed listening, please come back and listen to more. Tell your friends like us, review us and share our links. Farmgate is part of89.com, the land use news channel, which is supported by First Milk, Pelican Ag, the nature friendly Farming Network, Friarsmore Livestock Health, Agrolo and individual donors. And I've been Finlow Costain Bye for now.

35:28