Regenerative agriculture is gaining momentum worldwide among practitioners, scientists and policy makers, and it is often associated with agroecology. Indeed, regenerative agriculture has plenty in common with agroecology: e.g., soil and ecosystem restoration, reliance on biological interactions and ecosystem services, integration of domestic plants and animals, efficient use of the photosynthetic potential of annual and perennial combinations (Luján Soto et al., 2020; Schreefel et al., 2020; Giller et al., 2021). One aspect of agroecology that does not always fit comfortably in the realm of regenerative agriculture is political activism, or the place and emphasis that the “social” dimension takes in the definition of the social-ecological system. This is perhaps one of the reasons why agroecology is more closely associated with peasant movements, for whom claims on rights and access to natural resources are urgent (e.g., Rosset and Altieri, 2017), while regenerative agriculture is an approach increasingly—but not exclusively—also adopted by commercial, often large-scale farmers or external investors less concerned with natural resource access or food sovereignty issues. Thus, while the agroecology movement sees sustainability first and foremost as a political issue, regenerative agriculture seems a priori to be less concerned with politics and with the social dimension of sustainability. Yet, our first-hand experience in the field tells us that there may be more than one “type” of regenerative agriculture, that vary in their degree of association with agroecology. We find it timely to explore the diversity of definitions of regenerative agriculture available and their relationship with the most widely accepted definition of agroecology (cf. FAO, 2019).

Regenerative agriculture, agroecology, conservation farming, organic agriculture, etc. can be all seen as means to achieve a similar yet vaguely defined goal: sustainable agriculture. Simply defined, sustainability is the ability to meet the needs of the present without diminishing the ability to meet the needs of the future. Proponents of regenerative agriculture, however, aim beyond sustainability, that is, to contribute to constantly improving the environment (e.g., Ikerd, 2021) and farmland economic viability (Elevitch et al., 2018). This narrative was coined by Robert Rodale in the 1980's, the first one to propose regenerative organic agriculture (ROA) as an approach “beyond sustainable.” Although the term organic seems to have been lost along the way, the Rodale Institute is still promoting ROA, around which they even built an international certification system that considers social values such as worker well-being (https://regenorganic.org). The “regenerative” narrative has become increasingly attractive, especially after the evident failure of the UN Sustainable Intensification discourse at engaging supporters amongst environmentally mindful stakeholders (Struik and Kuyper, 2017). However, vague and diverse definitions, lack of regulation and protection of the term, leads to a situation in which governmental agencies, industries and sector organizations have their own interpretation of regenerative agriculture, depending on particular interests. It has even been pointed as a green washing strategy of governments and large multinational companies, a fact that is raising increasing criticism and concern (see later, Box 3). The arrival of these newcomers is not necessarily a reason for joy amongst regenerative agriculture organizations, particularly those that explicitly oppose the use of chemical inputs such as pesticides or mineral fertilizers (Schreefel et al., 2020).