Can we really talk about a “regenerative” bioeconomy?

By Martina Forbicini

Using the bioeconomy appropriately supports health, economy, and nature

Healthy soils, clean water, and functional biodiversity are essential for life on Earth, but also provide fundamental ecosystem services that support a wide range of economic sectors and industrial activities. Yet, despite their vital role, over 60% of EU soils are degrading and 80% of forests are already degraded.

The EU currently sources over 1 billion tonnes of biomass annually. Intensive biomass extraction is however, a leading cause of degrading forests, soils, farmland, and water bodies – and it also threatens the long-term viability of the bioeconomy itself – impacting the sustainability of ecosystems and our economies.

Increasing biomass extraction to replace fossil-based products with bio-based alternatives presents trade-offs, such as biodiversity loss and pressure on ecosystems. The bioeconomy is not inherently sustainable, it requires at least a reduction of both production and consumption levels to remain within ecological boundaries.

• Learn more in our response to the EU’s consultation on the bioeconomy
  Circularity, regeneration, and responsibility: Revising the EU’s Bioeconomy Strategy

“Sustainable” sourcing approaches focus on avoiding resource depletion and minimising harm, but the term “regenerative” evokes ideas of restoration and resilience – and is therefore gaining traction in policy and industry debates. Aiming for a “regenerative” bioeconomy is a useful starting point – and can be a win-win for nature and socio-economic resilience – but policymakers need to address the challenges of defining “regenerative” sourcing.

“Regenerative” remains vague and greenwashed

Despite being increasingly used in bioeconomy sectors, no official definition of “regenerative” exists in EU legislation – the term is currently not linked to science-based criteria or metrics. This leads to several interpretations and opens the door for greenwashing – or regenwashing.

Until it is clearly defined, “regenerative” presents itself as a catchy word, which has led to misappropriation and diluted the meaning across sectors:

• Agri-food: alleged “regenerative” agriculture strategies lack demonstrated benefits and do not always include truly biodiversity-friendly practices, e.g. phasing out fertiliser use or chemical inputs.
• Textiles: unsubstantiated or misleading claims of “regenerative” sourcing suggest that fabrics are “regenerated” or “regenerative”, sometimes actually referring to recycled material.
• Forestry: harmful sourcing approaches are sometimes certified as sustainable, undermining genuine efforts to protect forest ecosystems.

Some actors use process-based definitions that focus on practices or principles, e.g. cover crops, integrating livestock, or reducing/eliminating tillage – without being strict on the expected environmental outcomes. Whereas other actors use outcome-based definitions, which outline a set of goals, e.g. improve soil health, sequester carbon, or increase biodiversity – without explicitly defining practices to achieve these outcomes, or methodologies to measure them. Some use a combination of the two. Regardless of the definition, clearly identifying processes and robustly measuring the outcomes is useful to ensure that environmental benefits are achieved and there is feedback on practice.

A verifiable definition, anchored in both clear practices and measurable outcomes, is essential to protect the integrity of “regenerative” approaches and unlock credible climate and biodiversity gains as well as reduce risk for relevant financial mechanisms. Without it, farmers and producers using robust “regenerative” approaches will lose market distinction, policymakers will lack a benchmark to regulate harmful approaches and reward better performance, and consumers will be misled. Ultimately, the term risks losing credibility and impact in the long-term and could severely undermine ecological land management approaches that respect the environment and people.

What is ecological land management?

“Regenerative” sourcing of biomass requires ecological land management approaches that can truly realise the restorative potential of a bioeconomy and support socioeconomic resilience.

Ecological land management is a range of approaches that prioritise biodiversity, climate resilience, and ecosystem health. Ecological land management can simultaneously address social, environmental, climate, and economic challenges in agriculture and forestry and increase the sectors’ resilience. These approaches embody “regenerative” principles, such as relying on the interactions between plants, animals, and other organisms – or aiming to increase the provision of ecosystem services such as pollination, biological pest control, or nutrient cycling.

• Agroecology is “a holistic and integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social principles and concepts to the design and management of sustainable agriculture and food systems.” Agroecological approaches directly contribute to the objectives of the EU Nature Restoration Regulation, which calls for improvements in the condition of agricultural ecosystems. By integrating biodiversity into farming systems and fostering soil health, agroecology enables the restoration of key ecosystem services while strengthening resilience to climate change.
• Organic agriculture is “an integrated production management system that promotes and enhances agroecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It emphasises the use of natural inputs (i.e. mineral and products derived from plants) and the renunciation of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.” The term “organic” is subject to a legal framework in the EU, which ensures strict production and processing principles, accompanied by third-party control and certification.
• Ecological forestry is a body of approaches that notably includes closer-to-nature forestry (CNF), which involves a shift away from industrial clear-cutting and toward continuous cover forestry methods that promote natural regeneration, species diversity, and long-term resilience.

What next for the bioeconomy?

To identify genuinely “regenerative” from harmful sourcing approaches (and to avoid greenwashing), the EU must establish a robust framework of criteria which clearly define “regenerative” sourcing, helping to identify when biomass is responsibly sourced from ecologically managed land. This includes aligning with ecological land management approaches, which have already delivered proven benefits.

The definition of “regenerative” should draw on regulated and robust standards, e.g. the EU organic certification regulation, and be supported by indicators aligning with current and forthcoming legislation, including the Nature Restoration Regulation, Soil Monitoring Law, and Forest Monitoring Law, whose adoption and/or ambitious implementation is key.

Incentive structures, including funding and subsidy reforms, should prioritise truly “regenerative” approaches and disincentivise those that degrade ecosystems.

Efforts to scale up a ‘circular, regenerative, and competitive bioeconomy’ are incompatible with an unsustainable growing demand for food and materials beyond planetary boundaries.

Summary of recommendations

The EU lacks an official definition for “regenerative” sourcing, which leads to variable and misleading claims within different sectors.

• Acknowledge the vagueness of the term “regenerative”, the risk of greenwashing, and the misuse in different sectors that undermine a truly transformative new EU Bioeconomy Strategy.

“Regenerative” sourcing can help initiate important conversations, but other sourcing approaches can lead the way for a bioeconomy, which work in harmony with nature and support socioeconomic resilience.

• Recognise the environmental and social benefits of ecological land management approaches that need policy and funding support, such as agroecology, organic farming, and closer-to-nature forestry.

Operationalising a “regenerative” bioeconomy requires an EU-wide framework to measure, assess, and report on food and biomass sourcing,

• Identify and provide clarity on which practices, principles, and results are “regenerative”, and those which are not. The EU should include indicators and thresholds, which align with legislative frameworks (NRR, SML, FML) and with international commitments, e.g. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. As a minimum, use available and tested definitions and criteria for organic production to guide regenerative sourcing practices.

The success of regenerative sourcing hinges on appropriate (public and private) incentives that reward truly regenerative approaches and the phase-out of subsidies for approaches that degrade ecosystems.

• Put in place public and private funding mechanisms that reward regenerative approaches. Simultaneously, remove and prevent perverse incentives for degenerative approaches that harm the environment.

Further reading

• Circularity, regeneration, and responsibility: Our response to the EU’s consultation on the bioeconomy