From farm practices to supply chains and beyond 

As part of our ongoing series on farmers embracing regenerative and climate-friendly agriculture, Europe Jacques Delors analysts Sophia Caiati and Andrea Pratelli met with Casper Zulim de Swarte, senior manager for advocacy and communication at One Planet Business for Biodiversity (OP2B).  

This international, cross-sectoral initiative brings together diverse business stakeholders, such as global brands like McCain, Danone or L’Oréal, who share a commitment to transforming agricultural systems. With over two decades of experience across public and private sectors, Casper has made it his mission to foster collaboration between policymakers, intergovernmental organisations, civil society, and farmers' associations to establish regenerative agriculture as a credible and sustainable path forward. 

Casper: Regenerative agriculture is more than just a buzzword – it is a tangible shift in agricultural practice, with companies increasingly putting their money where their mouths are to support this transition at scale. However, at OP2B, we see this form of agriculture as an innovation pathway that allows farmers to transition to a more sustainable farming model. It focuses on a few core elements: improving soil health, enhancing water management, reducing emissions and increasing biodiversity. At the same time, it emphasises economic sustainability for farmers. It’s also important to highlight that regenerative agriculture isn’t a rigid set of practices: it’s flexible and context specific. This adaptability allows it to be a tailored solution for farms of all sizes and conditions. 

Casper: OP2B is a cross-sectoral business alliance, currently composed of 26 companies, ranging from industries like food, beverages, cosmetics, to fashion. These companies are all linked to farming in one way or another and therefore play an important role along the value chain in incentivising certain forms of agriculture.  Next to farmers, businesses can play a pivotal role in supporting the scale-up of regenerative agriculture by aligning, incentivising and increasing demand for regeneratively grown crops.  

We organise our work along three pillars. The first pillar is accountability. We help companies align on a farming approach based on outcomes, moving away from prescriptive practices and focusing instead on results such as healthier soils or increased biodiversity. In other words, instead of farmers being paid to deliver specific actions, they are paid based on the outcomes that are achieved. The second pillar focuses on financing. Farmers often face significant financial barriers when transitioning to regenerative practices. These include upfront costs for new equipment, a temporary dip in income, and the financial risks tied to changing practices. We work closely with banks, local landscape initiatives, and the European Commission to develop blended financial mechanisms. The third pillar is advocacy. We strive to create a more conducive policy environment for regenerative agriculture, working at the EU level to push for systemic changes that support this transition. 

Casper: One of the biggest changes we advocate for is transitioning to an outcome-based CAP post-2027. Instead of prescribing specific actions, we advocate to focus on measurable outcomes such as improved soil health, biodiversity protection or reduced water use.  The CAP, as one of the EU’s largest EU budget items, holds immense potential to drive change, but is – in its current form - not fit for purpose. Accelerating the transition to regenerative agriculture requires repurposing subsidies and scaling of public-private funds. In addition, we need more collaboration among farmers, policymakers, banks, supply chain actors, and potentially even consumers.   

Our research indicates that transformation potential remains unrealised due to a yearly funding gap of more than USD 300 billion.1 Moreover, current financial resources are often fragmented, poorly targeted, and often inaccessible to farmers (e.g.  because financial institutions do not want to provide financing to farming activities that are considered too risky or non-viable). What’s urgently needed is an integrated financial package to support farmers through the transition, comprising both CAP and private resources. 

Casper: I recently attended a meeting in the Netherlands with government representatives and several farmers and stakeholders along the value chain. A multinational dairy cooperative was also there, and they urged policymakers to stop trying to reinvent outcome-based policy approaches with new indicators, pointing out that the industry has been using data very effectively for over a decade. It was an important point, as there is no need for new indicators as they already exist and are reliable. However, some challenges remain. First, we need clearer thresholds to define what constitutes success, for instance in terms of biodiversity and soil health. This is where CAP could play a critical role, establishing unified standards while allowing flexibility to accommodate regional diversity. Technology plays a really important role in this regard. For instance, satellite data and on-farm sensors can help measure progress more accurately and efficiently. 

Casper: I can’t speak for all farmers, but what I observe is that there’s significant interest across the board. Many are drawn to the positive business outcomes, with our calculations showing that farms adopting regenerative practices can earn up to 25% more. That said, scaling is a challenge. Small-scale, grassroots farmers are often ahead in adopting regenerative methods, driven by their closeness to the land and commitment to sustainable practices. In contrast, larger farms, often associated with the companies we represent, are generally at a pilot stage. These are significant operations, and the stakes are high, but they are moving forward too. Within Europe, the movement is gaining momentum, with notable examples like potato farmers in northern France and the Netherlands. These farmers are transitioning to regenerative practices with support from companies like McCain and financing from local banks.  

Casper: We’ve identified that farmers need a range of funding types depending on the stage of their transition. Let me begin with CapEx, or capital expenditures. Transitioning to regenerative agriculture often requires investments in new equipment or even additional land. These are long-term investments and are usually funded by banks or other private or public investors. Then there’s OpEx, or operational expenditures, which are crucial during what we call the "hockey stick dip”, a temporary decline in income that farmers often experience during the transition. This funding helps keep farms running and is particularly important in Europe, where many farms are family-owned businesses. OpEx funding might come from price incentives provided by supply chain actors, combined with public funding from CAP. These resources help farmers bridge the financial gap during the critical early stages of the transition.  

From the farmer’s perspective, all these resources must come together at the right time and place. To achieve this, we propose to create so-called “one-stop shops” at the regional level. These hubs would provide a combination of coaching, technical expertise, and financial guidance tailored to the unique needs of farmers. Lastly, there’s the issue of liquidity. Many farms in Europe are already struggling with significant debt, which makes it incredibly risky for them to embark on a transition. As saying goes, "You can’t be green if you’re in the red.” Currently, there’s no clear solution to this problem. A few banks offer loan renewal schemes, but these efforts are still limited. Regarding technology, it’s undoubtedly an important area, but I would argue that education and innovation play an even bigger role. Farmers need to understand the principles of regenerative agriculture and how to implement them effectively. More investment in education is needed to equip farmers with the knowledge and skills to adapt. For instance, the EU’s funding programme for research and innovation (Horizon Europe) and national funds have started supporting this, but the rate of progress remains too slow to meet the scale of the challenge. 

Lastly, there are also farmers who have tried regenerative agriculture and decided it’s not for them. This raises the question: Why aren’t they staying, and what’s missing? The answer may lie in a lack of understanding of the comprehensive, system-wide changes that regenerative agriculture entails. Many farmers enter the process expecting incremental changes, thinking they can adopt a bit of precision agriculture here and a tweak there. However, regenerative agriculture requires a full, holistic shift in the farming system. Without the right guidance to help them understand this broader approach, many find it difficult to stay committed.

Casper: For young farmers, the challenges are immense. When they take over family farms, they often inherit significant debt, typically around €10 million or more. Imagine being in your twenties, suddenly becoming the CEO of a multimillion-euro business. On top of that, the former CEOs, usually their parents, are still living on the farm and offering advice. That dynamic creates an environment where risk-taking, including adopting new practices like regenerative agriculture, becomes incredibly difficult. Adding to this is the influence of input providers, who often have long-standing relationships with these farms. These advisors are trusted figures, sometimes having visited the farms for decades, and their recommendations often lean towards maintaining the status quo, using more fertilisers and pesticides, for example. Shifting this mindset is no small task, and it underscores how deeply entrenched some of these cultural barriers are. 

Second, regenerative agriculture cannot succeed in isolation. If a single farm adopts regenerative practices while the surrounding farms continue with conventional, industrial methods, the broader environmental benefits may not materialise. That’s why we need a landscape-level approach. We’re actively working on this with organisations like the LENs Network in the UK and Europe, as well as Common Lands. Financing these efforts is a major focus for us, as collaboration at this level is essential for meaningful progress.