A few months ago, a company asked me to help them enter the Brazilian market.

Their view of the situation: the hard work was done. Offer defined. Investment approved. Go-to-market outlined. They needed someone on the ground to connect with customers and activate relationships.

What they needed, in their words, was execution.

There is a specific kind of confidence that comes with that framing. The internal battles have been fought. Trade-offs made. Resources allocated. The system, everyone assumes, is ready. What’s left is to make it move.

The first question was always speed.

When Complexity Gets Mistaken for Depth

Before we moved into the field, something in the early conversations caught my attention.

At one point, almost in passing, someone described the offer as “not simple to explain.” Said it without hesitation. As if difficulty to explain was a signal of how much had been built.

It wasn’t.

As we spent time unpacking what was actually being offered, the complexity started to feel different. Not deep. Unfocused.

Each attempt to describe the offer landed somewhere else. Sometimes it was an MRV solution. Sometimes carbon. Then consulting. Then regenerative transition support. Then certification. Then trading.

None of those perspectives were wrong. But they didn’t converge.

So we kept returning to the same question: what is the offer, exactly? Not in strategy terms. In farmer terms. What would be said to a producer. What problem it solves. Where the value actually comes from.

Those conversations never resolved into one answer. They produced variations. No single narrative held when placed next to the others. No stable center.

When Farmers Ask the Real Questions

We moved into the field. Conversations with farmers and potential buyers.

These are usually treated as validation exercises. Confirm that what was designed internally resonates externally.

That’s not what happened.

Farmers weren’t reacting to the solution design. They were trying to understand what it meant for their reality. That shift changed everything.

They weren’t asking about methodology. They were asking about continuity. Who buys what they produce. Under what conditions. For how long. Whether participation in this system could actually be sustained over time.

Those are not skeptical questions. They are basic questions. And they didn’t have solid answers.

No defined offtake structure. No concrete demand signal that translated intention into something commercially real. What existed, at that point, was closer to a possibility than a system.

When Capital Gets Asked to Compensate

That realization shifted focus toward funding.

If demand was still forming, maybe capital could absorb the early uncertainty. Buy time for the system to develop and stabilize.

Funding had been secured. That provided confidence at the start. But the structure of capital matters more than its existence.

It was designed to enable initiation, not to support a transition. It assumed relatively quick validation. But the environment required the opposite: patience and the acceptance that outcomes in agriculture don’t materialize on internal timelines.

The system was built for one scenario and operating in another.

When Timelines Don’t Match the Ground

Expectations were anchored in short cycles. Early results. Visible traction. The kind of signals that make sense inside an organization with performance reviews to answer to.

Agriculture doesn’t work that way.

Trust with farmers isn’t built in weeks. Adoption doesn’t happen in a single conversation. Outcomes linked to soil or productivity follow biological cycles that cannot be compressed for a quarterly deadline.

This tension wasn’t visible at the start. It became increasingly relevant as everything else accumulated.

The Pattern

Individually, none of these elements looked fatal. Each felt like something to refine.

But they weren’t isolated. They were connected. And together they formed a pattern.

The offer didn’t align with what farmers needed in practice. The commercial structure wasn’t anchored in real demand. The capital available didn’t match the time required. The expected timelines didn’t match how change actually happens on the ground.

At a certain point, these can’t be treated as execution gaps. They point to something that was never fully formed to begin with.

A system still forming behaves differently from one that is fully defined. It can generate activity. It can produce early signals that look promising. But it can’t hold when exposed to the full conditions it was built for.

By the time this becomes visible, most of the work is already in motion. Decisions made, resources committed, expectations set. Revisiting the design at that stage feels like stepping back, not forward. So the tendency is to keep moving. Adjust where possible. Compensate for what doesn’t fit.

Sometimes that holds. For a while.

What usually follows isn’t a clean failure. It’s a gradual loss of coherence. Decisions take longer. Momentum weakens. Progress becomes harder to sustain.

From the outside, it still looks like something moving. From the inside, it feels increasingly difficult to maintain.

Why This Pattern Keeps Repeating

The context changes. The terminology shifts. The actors differ. But the dynamic follows a familiar arc.

A solution gets defined with strong internal alignment. A pilot launches under conditions flexible enough to allow early movement. Early signals get interpreted as confirmation. And then comes the assumption that what has been started can be scaled.

That’s where the test changes.

Scaling removes the flexibility that made the early stages possible. It introduces a consistency requirement that can’t rely on exceptions. It forces alignment between elements that were never fully aligned to begin with.

Farmers operate on seasonal risk and cash flow. Companies navigate internal performance cycles. Capital follows its own return structure and time horizons. Ecosystems evolve according to biological processes that don’t respond to any of these.

Each is coherent in isolation. But coherence in isolation isn’t enough.

What holds a system together isn’t the strength of each part individually. It’s how those parts connect under pressure.

When that connection is assumed rather than designed, it holds only under limited conditions. The moment conditions change, the system reveals itself — not as intended, but as it actually operates.

What Revealed Itself in Brazil

The realization didn’t come as a single moment.

It came through conversations that didn’t fully land. Through explanations that shifted depending on the angle. Through expectations that never quite connected with the conditions they were meant to operate within.

There was no clear breaking point. Only a growing recognition that what had seemed ready was still taking shape.

That’s the harder situation to navigate. Not because it fails visibly. But because it keeps moving, creating the impression of progress while gradually revealing its own limits.

Every system gets tested eventually. Not in theory. In practice.

And when it is, it doesn’t respond based on intention. It responds based on structure. It reveals what it actually is.

Some systems don’t fail when they scale.

They reveal that they were never fully there.

Where in your current work are you moving forward on something that still hasn’t fully taken shape?

Designing a regenerative sourcing program or deploying capital into agricultural transition? Let’s map which curve you’re on, before the program launches.

Book 1:1

Share

“It’s not a J-curve. Never was.”

Marco doesn’t look like someone who spends time reading white papers on regenerative agriculture. He’s a soy farmer from Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil, pragmatic, direct, and deeply skeptical of anything that sounds like it was designed in a conference room.

When I sat down with him last year, I expected to hear the usual story: the hard years, the financial pressure, the slow recovery. The J-curve narrative that the industry repeats almost universally when talking about the transition to regenerative practices.

He stopped me before I even finished the sentence.

“It’s not a J-curve. Never was, not for me, not for most of the farmers I know here in the south.”

I pushed back. The J-curve is well-documented. Productivity dips before it recovers. Costs rise before they fall. That’s the transition.

Marco shook his head.

“That’s one transition. Not all of them. It depends on where you start and how big the change is. We didn’t collapse. We improved, gradually, steadily, without drama.”

He was right. And that distinction, which sounds almost technical, has enormous consequences for how capital flows into regenerative agriculture, and how programs succeed or fail.

What Marco saw before the agronomists did

Marco’s farm didn’t start transitioning because of a program, a subsidy, or a sourcing requirement from a European buyer. It started because he was paying close attention to what was happening on his land and he didn’t like what he saw.

“The soil was tired. I could feel it. You work the same land for thirty years, you know when it’s giving you less than it should.”

He began reducing chemical inputs gradually. Not dramatically, no overnight conversion, no ideological commitment to a certification. Just a methodical reduction in fungicides, insecticides, and synthetic fertilizers, replaced by biological inputs, cover crop rotations, and better soil management.

The results didn’t come in the shape most people expect.

“We didn’t fall and then recover. We improved consistently. Small steps, but always forward. And then something started happening that I didn’t plan for.”

Animals returned to his land. Species he hadn’t seen in years birds, insects, small mammals. The trees on the edge of his fields began showing fungal networks at their roots, visible signs of soil biology recovering. His input costs dropped significantly over three years, not just slightly, but enough to change the financial structure of his operation.

“I stopped needing government credit lines. I stopped being afraid of interest rates. That changes everything about how you think about your farm.”

That last sentence landed harder than anything else in our conversation. Financial independence, not yield, not carbon credits, not ESG compliance, is what Marco describes as the most transformative outcome of the transition. A farm that doesn’t depend on chemical packages, bank financing, or government subsidies is a fundamentally different business. It’s a resilient one.

Why Marco’s experience doesn’t contradict the science, it completes it

Marco is not an outlier. And his transition was not easier or more fortunate than others. It followed a different curve, because it started from a different position, with a different scope of change.

The shape of a regenerative transition is not fixed. It is determined by two variables: the farm’s current productive state (high or low) and the scale of change being introduced (controlled and incremental, or broad and systemic).

Those two variables produce three distinct transition curves. Each one is real. Each one is valid. But they are not interchangeable, and treating them as if they were is one of the most expensive mistakes in regenerative program design.

Share

The three curves

Curve 1: Linear - High productivity, controlled change

This is Marco’s curve. And it is the most underestimated one in the industry.

A Brazilian soy or corn producer with a strong baseline, good soil management, some precision agriculture, no-till already in practice, can introduce regenerative changes in isolation. One cover crop rotation tested on a specific plot. One reduction in fungicide application monitored over a season. The productive system is resilient enough to absorb the experiment without total disruption.

The transition here is linear because the learning is modular. Each change is contained, measurable, and reversible if needed. Productivity doesn’t collapse because the system has enough biological capital to buffer the shift.

For capital architects, this curve offers the lowest risk profile, but it also requires a different investment logic. The value here is not in rescuing a failing system. It is in accelerating the diffusion of validated practices across a large, already-functional base. The error most programs make is over-engineering financial incentives for farmers who are already moving, and under-investing in the knowledge infrastructure that would let them move faster.

Curve 2: J-Curve - High productivity, systemic change

Marco’s curve is not universal. And he would be the first to say so.

An European farmer adopting no-till from a conventional tillage baseline is not making one change. They are making a systemic shift, in equipment, seed genetics, weed management, soil biology, and agronomic decision-making, simultaneously. The productive system has no biological buffer to absorb this. Productivity will fall. Costs will rise. The farmer will face their most difficult season at precisely the moment when the program needs them to stay committed.

This is the J-curve. It is real, it is documented, and it is the dominant transition curve in contexts where the gap between current practice and regenerative practice is large.

The problem is not the curve. The problem is that most programs are not designed to support farmers through the valley. Capital structures built around 12-month cycles and output-based KPIs are structurally incompatible with a biological system that takes 24 to 36 months to stabilize. Farmers don’t abandon these programs because they lack conviction. They abandon them because the architecture fails them at the worst possible moment.

For founders designing programs in European markets, or in Brazilian contexts involving significant systemic change, this is the most likely terrain. It demands dense technical support, multi-year financial commitment, and go/no-go decision points anchored to agronomic milestones, not calendar dates.

Curve 3: Accelerated → Plateau - Low productivity, systemic change

This curve looks like success. Early and fast.

In degraded pastureland, common across the Brazilian Cerrado, Caatinga, or heavily eroded areas of Brazil, the baseline is so depleted that almost any intervention produces visible improvement. Introduce cover crops, rotate livestock, add organic matter, and the system responds within one growing season. Farmers see results quickly. Programs celebrate early wins.

But those early gains are structural recovery, not transformation. The system is rebuilding minimum biological function, it is not yet regenerating at scale. Once it crosses that threshold, the easy wins stop. The curve flattens. Programs that were celebrated for rapid impact suddenly look stagnant, and the temptation is to conclude that the approach has stopped working.

It hasn’t. The system has simply entered a new phase, one that requires a different kind of investment. Patient capital, deeper agronomic intervention, and a longer time horizon to unlock the next level of performance.

For capital architects, this curve demands a two-phase investment thesis: fast-moving capital for the acceleration phase, and patient capital for the plateau transition. Most fund structures are optimized for one or the other. Rarely both.

The quadrant you should avoid

There is a fourth combination worth naming briefly: low productivity and small-scale, controlled change. This quadrant rarely justifies the program design effort. The system is not productive enough to generate meaningful learning from incremental experiments, and the upside is too limited to attract serious capital. If your program is operating here, redesign before you deploy, not after.

What changes when you know your curve

Marco’s farm is not a case study in regenerative agriculture’s potential. It is a case study in what happens when the scope of change is calibrated to the productive state of the system, even if that calibration happened intuitively, without a formal framework.

His animals came back. His trees recovered their fungal networks. His input costs fell substantially, not marginally. And he achieved something most regenerative agriculture programs never mention as a goal: financial independence. No government credit lines. No bank interest. No dependency on the next chemical package from a distributor.

That outcome is not available on every curve. It requires starting from a position of productive strength, introducing change at a pace the system can absorb, and staying consistent long enough for the biology to do its work.

For capital architects: the diagnostic question before committing capital is not “is this farm transitioning?” It is “which curve is this program on, and is our capital structure designed for that specific curve?”

For AgFood founders and CEOs: your program assumptions are probably built for the linear curve, because it is the most legible and the easiest to model. But your highest-impact sourcing contexts operate on the J and the accelerated curve. Designing for the wrong one is not a minor miscalibration. It is a structural misalignment between your program and the biological reality it is trying to change.

The takeaway

Marco was right. The J-curve is not the universal story of regenerative transition. It is one story, determined by where you start and how big the leap is. Know your curve before you design your program. Know your curve before you deploy your capital.

The biology will not wait for you to figure it out in year two.

Designing a regenerative sourcing program or deploying capital into agricultural transition? Let’s map which curve you’re on, before the program launches.

Book 1:1

Subscribe now

Share

A few months ago, I was brought in to work with a company developing regenerative agriculture solutions in Brazil. They had been operating for two years. The team was committed. The agronomic work was real. They were recovering degraded land, building something meaningful on paper.

But the funds were running out. And the investors were getting uncomfortable.

The initial read from the inside was that this was an execution problem. The team needed to move faster, communicate better, show more results. Maybe bring in someone to help with investor relations.

That was not the problem.

As I worked through the structure of the program, three failures became clear. None of them were about execution. All of them were baked in from the beginning, before a single farmer changed a single practice.

The first failure: capital that did not match the biology

The program had been funded by private investors expecting returns on a timeline that had nothing to do with how land recovery actually works.

Recovering degraded land in Brazil is not a two-year project. The biological processes involved operate on cycles of five, seven, ten years. The first years carry the highest costs and the lowest certainty. That is not a problem with the program. That is the nature of the work.

But the capital structure was designed as if this were a conventional agricultural venture with a short payback period. Investors came in with short-term expectations. When the results did not arrive on that timeline, they did not recalibrate their expectations. They lost trust. In the project. In the numbers. In some cases, in the founder.

By the time I got involved, the relationship between the team and its investors had deteriorated to the point where raising a follow-on round from the same group was no longer realistic. Not because the program had failed agronomically. Because the capital structure had never been aligned with the biological reality of what was being built.

The second failure: demand that was assumed, not secured

Before the program launched, the team made a bet. They assumed there would be premium market demand for what they were producing. The assumption was not unreasonable. The narrative around sustainable sourcing was strong. Buyers were talking about regenerative supply chains. The signals looked positive.

But signals are not offtake agreements.

Two years in, the team was sitting on production capacity and agronomic learnings with no formal buyer commitments to anchor against. When I pushed on this, the answer was that the plan was to secure buyers once the production was more established.

The logic was backwards. Farmers change practices when they have market certainty. Without an offtake structure in place before the transition, the program was asking farmers to take on risk that the market had not agreed to absorb.

And when we started working backwards from actual buyer conversations, a more complicated problem surfaced.

The third failure: a cascade nobody had mapped

When we started talking to potential offtakers, their needs were specific. Particular crops. Particular quality standards. Particular geographies that fit their procurement and logistics models.

The crops the offtakers actually wanted were not the crops the program had prioritized.

That sounds like a simple fix. Change the crops. But in a regenerative system, crop selection is not an isolated decision. It determines which geographies make sense. Which geographies determine what agronomic systems are viable. Which agronomic systems determine what baseline assessments are needed, what the implementation strategy looks like, and what metrics actually matter. A buyer focused on quality specifications needs a completely different measurement framework than a program built around yield recovery.

The entire operational and verification architecture of the program had been built around the wrong anchor.

Two years of work, real agronomic progress, genuine farmer relationships. And underneath it all, a structural cascade that no one had mapped before the program started.

What this looks like from the outside

From the outside, this program looked like an execution problem. Slow results. Investor tensions. A team under pressure.

From the inside, it was a design problem. Every failure traced back to a decision, or a non-decision, made at the founding moment of the program.

This is not unusual. It is, in fact, the pattern I keep seeing across regenerative agriculture initiatives. The programs that struggle are not the ones with bad science or uncommitted teams. They are the ones that were never structured to work in the first place.

After spending the past weeks in conversations with investors, sovereign funds, and capital architects across multiple markets, the same picture keeps emerging. The programs that attract serious capital and achieve real scale share a common architecture. Five structural components appear consistently across all of them.

The five components of programs that actually scale

Demand before transition. Offtake agreements or buyer commitments need to be in place before farmers are asked to change practices. Demand anchors the system. Without it, every other component is exposed.

Catalytic capital to unlock the transition. The first years of regeneration carry the highest uncertainty and the lowest commercial returns. That phase requires grants, blended finance, or philanthropic capital, not to subsidize the program indefinitely, but to absorb the transition risk long enough for the commercial structure to prove itself. Expecting commercial capital to carry this phase from day one either blocks the capital raise or produces a cost structure that makes the program unworkable for farmers.

Risk protection for farmers. Yield insurance for transition years. Income guarantees against baseline production. Agronomic support that reduces the probability of failure. Without mechanisms that absorb some of the transition risk on the farmer side, adoption stalls regardless of how compelling the program looks on paper.

Patient capital aligned with biology. Soil systems and land recovery operate on biological timelines. Programs financed with capital expecting returns in two to three years create internal pressure that leads to shortcuts, verification compromises, and the kind of outcomes that erode trust, with investors and with farmers. Patient capital, with return expectations calibrated to the actual biological timeline, is not an idealistic ask. It is a structural requirement.

A real operator behind the program. This is the element most consistently underestimated. Regenerative agriculture programs are not financial instruments. They are complex operating systems involving farmers, buyers, capital providers, verification systems, and local institutions, all with different incentive structures and timelines. Someone has to design that architecture, operate it day to day, and hold it together when conditions change. The Brazil project I described had real components. What it lacked was an operator who had mapped the full system, including the demand side, before the program launched. That gap cost two years.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/fabricio-peres-leader_5-pillars-for-well-structured-reg-ag-program-activity-7437218222338334720-YW9S?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAhIvoBvcmCmVHM_ZZu2zB6r5_JayKjF5k

The real question

There is a question that gets asked constantly in conversations about regenerative agriculture: does it work?

It is the wrong question.

The agronomic evidence is real. The market interest from buyers and consumers is real. The long-term case for soil health as a productive asset is real.

The right question is whether a specific program was structured to work from the beginning.

The program I worked with in Brazil was not a failure of regenerative agriculture. It was a failure of program design. The farmers involved were doing real work. The land was responding. But the capital structure, the demand architecture, and the operational logic had never been aligned into a system that could sustain itself through the transition phase.

Regenerative agriculture will not scale because the world finally understands its importance. It will scale when the programs built around it are designed with the same rigor applied to the biology.

The architecture is the strategy. Everything else follows from it.

If you are working on or evaluating a regenerative agriculture program and want to think through the structure, join the waitlist for the next cohort here: https://forms.gle/kxJaBuqqLaLS4xaY7

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Two carnivals just ended.

Two weeks ago, Brazil’s streets went silent after five days of chaos, color, and joy. Last week, Basel did the same, but in its own way. Quiet lanterns, masked figures, piccolo and drums echoing through cobblestone streets at 4 a.m.

I’ve been thinking about both of them ever since.

Not because I was at either. But because they represent two of the most instructive models for how to bring something complex into the world. And right now, watching how regenerative agriculture solutions get built and commercialized, AgTech platforms, certification schemes, transition finance programs, soil carbon projects, I keep seeing the same mistake play out.

Everyone wants to parade. Nobody wants to prepare.

Two carnivals. Two logics.

Brazil has not one carnival but two.

There is the bloco de rua, the street party. Anyone can join. There is no fixed route, no uniform, no rehearsal required. You show up, you follow the music, you belong. The energy is electric. The rules are minimal. It is spontaneous, democratic, joyful, and impossible to plan.

Then there is the Sambódromo version.

A samba school preparing for Carnival in Rio and in São Paulo is a different creature entirely. It can take a full year of work. The enredo (the narrative theme) is chosen months in advance and must be defended in less than 80 minutes of performance. Every ala, every float, every costume, every drumbeat has a function. Forty judges score harmony, rhythm, costumes, floats, percussion, flag-bearer and drum major performance, and the overall storyline. Promotion and relegation are real. Stakes are real. Failure is public.

It is pageantry. But it is also strategy, logistics, and execution at scale.

Then there is Basel’s Fasnacht. The three most beautiful days, as locals call them. It runs for exactly 72 hours, from 4 a.m. Monday to 4 a.m. Thursday, not a minute more. Every Clique (the organized carnival groups) prepares their lanterns, costumes, and satirical themes for months. The Morgestraich, the opening march in complete darkness, requires synchronization across thousands of participants across the entire old city. There are no shortcuts. If you have not prepared, it shows immediately.

Both the Sambódromo and Fasnacht share something the bloco de rua does not: the outcome is not defined by the energy of the moment. It is defined by what happened before anyone set foot on the street.

Regenerative solutions have a bloco problem.

Here is the pattern I see repeatedly.

A founder builds something real. The technology works, the methodology is sound, the science is there. Or a team inside a larger organization designs a transition program with genuine ambition: practice changes, measurement frameworks, financial incentives that could actually move behavior.

Then someone says: let’s launch.

And they do. Often quickly. The solution goes to market before anyone has spent serious time understanding who, exactly, they are trying to reach. Before the value proposition has been tested with real farmers or real buyers, or real certification clients, in real conversations. Before anyone has asked which channel actually reaches the right decision-maker, or whether the assumed route to market makes sense at all. Before the unit economics at farm level have been pressure-tested by segment, geography, or operation size. Before the offer has been reshaped based on what early users actually said.

For a founder, this looks like a product that technically works but commercially stalls. Pilots that get funded but don’t scale. A Series A conversation that keeps circling back to the same unanswered question: how do you actually reach the right farmer, at volume, at a cost that makes sense?

For a more established solution provider or program operator, it rhymes but looks different. Uptake slower than projected. Cost per participant that won’t come down. Pilots that plateau at the same number, year after year.

The solution was not wrong. The sequence was.

What offer design actually requires

Offer design is not marketing. It is not messaging. It is the work that happens before any of that.

It starts with a question that sounds obvious but is rarely answered with real rigor: who, specifically, is the customer and what problem are you actually solving for them?

Not “row crop farmers in the Midwest.” Not “smallholders in Southeast Asia.” Those are populations. Offer design requires segments, groups of people who share a common problem, a common decision logic, and a common way of evaluating whether something is worth their time, their data, or their risk.

And the problem has to be economic. Not aspirational.

A farmer doesn’t wake up wanting to regenerate their soil. They wake up worried about input costs eating into margin, about yield variability they can’t predict, about what happens to their land value if water availability keeps declining. A food company isn’t looking for a certification. It’s looking to protect a sourcing region it depends on, or to close the gap between a public commitment and a verifiable supply chain story, before an investor or regulator asks the question first. A transition finance provider isn’t funding sustainability. It’s trying to deploy capital into an asset class that isn’t purely commodity-correlated.

Same solution. Entirely different problems. Entirely different offers.

This distinction matters more than almost anything else in go-to-market design, because the framing of the offer determines what the customer is actually comparing you to. If you lead with your technology, you get evaluated against other technologies. If you lead with the outcome, lower input cost per unit, reduced supply chain exposure, measurable land value retention, you get evaluated against the cost of the problem itself. That is a much more favorable position, and a much shorter conversation.

Once you have real segments and real problem statements, you need real feedback, not surveys, not focus groups. Actual conversations, early, with people who might say no. The farmers, buyers, or program participants who decline at the beginning are the ones who tell you what the offer is actually missing. They are the most valuable signal in your entire commercialization process. And most teams never systematically collect it.

Then you need channel logic. Regenerative solutions often assume that existing agricultural channels, input retailers, co-ops, agronomists, certification bodies, can carry a fundamentally different kind of conversation. Sometimes they can. Often they cannot. The skills, incentives, and trust relationships required to explain a transition pathway or a data-sharing arrangement are different from the ones required to move seed or crop protection product. Channel selection is a strategic decision, not an inherited default.

None of this is intellectually complicated. All of it takes time. And most teams skip it, because the pressure to show traction is immediate, investor timelines are real, and the work of offer design produces no visible output until it’s done.

The Sambódromo does not improvise

A samba school does not decide its theme two weeks before Carnival.

The enredo is the spine of the entire performance. Every costume, every float, every choreographic sequence, every lyric in the samba song is built around it. Change the enredo late, and everything collapses. But here is the part that’s often missed: the enredo is not invented in isolation. It emerges from a process. Community input. Internal debate. Testing of ideas against what the audience, and the judges, are actually evaluating.

The school does not guess at what will land. It investigates, then commits, then executes.

Basel’s Cliques do the same. Each group selects a satirical theme and spends months crafting lanterns and costumes that communicate it precisely. The lanterns displayed at Münsterplatz during Fasnacht are not decorations. They are arguments, visual, deliberate, constructed to make a point that resonates with people who know the context. They work because the preparation was serious.

In both cases, the quality of the final performance is almost entirely determined before the first step is taken in public.

This is exactly the relationship between offer design and commercial launch. The parade is not where you figure out your message. It is where you deliver it.

Channels are not neutral

One more thing that offer design forces you to confront, and that investors often underweight when evaluating regenerative solutions.

The channel you use to reach farmers, buyers, or supply chain participants is not a neutral delivery mechanism. It shapes the message, filters the audience, and sets expectations before the first conversation happens. A transactional input retailer carries different relationship equity than a trusted agronomist. A sustainability-focused certification body reaches a different grower profile than a commodity co-op. A direct digital platform makes different demands on the farmer than a field-based program delivered by extension agents.

Most regenerative solutions inherit their channel from whatever relationships already exist, the pilot partner, the first investor’s network, the founder’s prior connections. That is understandable. It is also one of the primary reasons solutions stall between pilot and scale.

The Sambódromo assigns specific roles deliberately. The porta-bandeira and mestre-sala, the flag-bearer and drum major, are not interchangeable with the percussion section or the float designers. Different functions require different skills, different presence, different timing in the sequence. Confuse them and the performance breaks down, visibly, in front of 90,000 people.

The same is true for go-to-market design. The right offer delivered through the wrong channel does not convert. It just consumes more runway before arriving at the same outcome. For a funded startup, that is a serious problem. For a program with a fixed deployment window, it is a strategic failure.

Share

What skipping this costs, in ways that compound

The cost of skipping offer design is not always visible at first. Solutions launch. Pilots enroll participants. Early numbers look acceptable. Progress is declared.

The real cost shows up later, and it compounds.

It shows up in cost per farmer acquired that stays stubbornly high, because the segment is too broad or the channel too expensive. In pilots that hit the same ceiling year after year, because the farmers who enrolled weren’t the right farmers to build from. In investor conversations that stall at Series A or Series B, because the go-to-market thesis hasn’t been validated at the unit level. In food company procurement teams that believe in the program but can’t operationalize it into their supply base.

And it shows up in credibility, which, in a sector as relationship-dependent as agriculture, is one of the hardest things to rebuild once spent.

Regenerative agriculture is not short on ambitious solutions. It is short on solutions that reach meaningful scale without burning through capital or compromising on rigor. Every launch that underperforms, every pilot that doesn’t replicate, makes the next conversation with farmers, buyers, and investors slightly harder.

The bloco de rua is forgiving. If the music stops, you find another block and keep dancing. A funded solution with a board, a deployment commitment, and a commercial target is not. It deserves the preparation the Sambódromo would demand.

The questions worth sitting with

If you are building a regenerative solution today, as a founder, a program operator, or an investor evaluating where a solution sits in its commercial journey, there is a version of this that applies directly.

Do you know which customer segments your solution is designed for, and has each been defined by a specific economic problem, not a sustainability aspiration?

Is your offer framed around the outcome the customer needs to solve, or around the capabilities of your platform or methodology?

Do you know whether your channel can carry the commercial conversation your solution actually requires, or is it inherited from convenience?

Do you know what early adopters found missing or insufficient, and has the offer changed as a result?

If the answers are uncertain, the solution is in bloco mode. Which can generate energy and early momentum. It does not, on its own, generate the compounding traction that makes a regenerative business viable at scale.

The Sambódromo earns its stage over twelve months of invisible work. Fasnacht earns its 72 hours the same way. The visibility is the last part. Not the first.

If you want to pressure-test whether your regenerative go-to-market is built on offer design or on optimism, there is a starting point.

Assess Here

That assessment is often where the distance between regenerative intent and regenerative scale first becomes visible.

Beyond Harvest is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

A conversation at home that reframed everything

There is a conversation I often have with my wife, Lívia, regarding our kids, and it usually starts the same way. Phones. Internet. Screen time. New technologies. Access. More recently, AI tools have also entered the discussion.

The question is always framed around risk. Should we allow it? How early is too early? What happens if we say no?

At first glance, banning technology feels safer. If children don’t have access, they can’t misuse it. No exposure, no damage. But every time we take the conversation further, we reach the same conclusion. The problem is not the technology itself. The problem is how it is used, how often, and whether there is education, context, and accountability around it.

A phone without limits can be harmful. A phone with guidance, boundaries, and supervision becomes a tool. More importantly, avoiding technology entirely does not prepare children for the world they will inevitably face. It only postpones the risk and makes it harder to manage later.

That logic feels obvious at home. In agriculture, somehow, it becomes controversial.

The double standard we apply to farming

In most sectors of society, progress is assumed. Cars became safer, not slower. Medicine became more precise, not more primitive. Technology became smarter, not forbidden. We did not ban tools; we learned how to use them better.

In agriculture, particularly in regenerative debates, this logic is often reversed. Pesticides are framed as fundamentally incompatible with regeneration. Their presence is treated as a moral failure rather than a technical decision. The discussion stops being about outcomes and quietly turns into a conversation about purity.

This is where regenerative agriculture drifts away from science and into ideology. And once that happens, strategic thinking usually follows the same path.

Pesticides are tools, not philosophies

No serious system is defined by what it bans. It is defined by what it delivers.

Pesticides are not an identity or a belief system. They are tools, just like fertilizers, machinery, genetics, data, and irrigation. The relevant question is not whether pesticides exist in regenerative systems, but how they are used, how frequently, under what agronomic logic, and with what level of knowledge and control.

Blanket rejection is intellectually simple. Designing systems that use inputs more intelligently is far more complex. It requires agronomy, data, monitoring, and accountability. But complexity is precisely what makes systems resilient at scale.

Productivity is not the enemy of the environment

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable. Low productivity is often framed as environmentally virtuous, while high productivity is treated with suspicion. Reality is far less romantic.

Lower yields do not make demand disappear. They displace production. When productivity drops without a corresponding reduction in demand, land pressure increases elsewhere, deforestation risk rises, food prices go up, and social vulnerability grows. Environmental impact is not eliminated; it is relocated.

Productivity, when achieved intelligently, is an environmental strategy. Producing more with fewer inputs per unit, minimizing land expansion, and reducing systemic pressure on ecosystems is not the opposite of regeneration. In many cases, it is a prerequisite for it.

Precision beats prohibition

Returning to the conversation with Lívia, we don’t give our children unlimited screen time and hope for the best. We set rules, explain why, monitor behavior, and adjust when necessary. The focus is not on pretending technology does not exist, but on teaching how to use it responsibly.

Regenerative agriculture should follow the same logic. Precision application, targeted interventions, integrated pest management, biologicals combined with chemistry, and data-driven decisions all aim at reducing excess, not denying reality. This approach does not represent a step backward. It is an evolution toward more intelligent systems.

Banning inputs is easy. Designing systems that manage them well is not. Only one of these approaches scales.

The hidden risk of pesticide absolutism

The rejection of pesticides is often justified as risk reduction. In practice, it frequently introduces new risks that are rarely acknowledged. Yield variability increases, labor intensity rises, costs shift upstream, food affordability is affected, and supply reliability weakens.

When tools are removed without viable alternatives, risk does not disappear. It moves. And it usually moves to producers, consumers, and regions least able to absorb it. This is not a theoretical concern. It is already visible in multiple production systems shaped more by ideology than by agronomic reality.

Regenerative agriculture is a system, not a stance

Many regenerative initiatives fail because they focus on what the system rejects instead of how the system performs. True regeneration is not defined by purity, but by outcomes over time: soil function, yield stability, resilience, economic viability, and environmental performance.

Pesticides, when used irresponsibly, absolutely undermine these goals. When used strategically, sparingly, and with technical rigor, they can support them. Rejecting tools does not make a system regenerative. Designing better systems does.

The uncomfortable question executives must face

This is not a debate for social media. It is a strategic decision for executives, procurement leaders, and supply chain architects.

Are you building regenerative systems that educate producers, control tool use, optimize inputs, and protect productivity and supply stability? Or are you defending simplified bans that collapse when exposed to scale, climate volatility, and real-world economics?

Just like with children and technology, avoiding the conversation does not eliminate risk. It guarantees it will return later, larger and harder to manage.

From belief to assessment

Regenerative agriculture will not succeed on conviction alone. It will succeed when treated as a system design challenge grounded in science, innovation, and execution.

If you want to pressure-test whether your regenerative strategy is built on evidence or belief, there is a simple starting point.

Assess Here

That assessment is often where the difference between regenerative intent and regenerative advantage becomes clear.

A few days ago, I found myself in a conversation that felt strangely familiar.

It was one of those discussions that sound productive from the outside. Smart people. Clear logic. Confident assumptions. Agriculture framed as a solvable problem.

The idea on the table was simple. Farmers, in many regions, already have the knowledge. Technology exists. Operational capacity is there. What’s missing is better-structured capital and clearer incentives to accelerate the transition toward regenerative practices.

Nothing about the conversation was wrong.

And yet, something about it felt incomplete.

Not because the people involved lacked intelligence or good intentions. But because the clarity arrived too fast. The risks seemed neatly arranged before anyone had sat with how uneven, fragile, and contextual agricultural reality actually is.

That feeling is not unique to investors. I’ve heard the same logic echoed by corporate leaders, consultants, procurement teams, and sustainability groups. Different rooms. Different roles. Same assumptions.

When agriculture starts sounding simple, something important is usually being skipped.

The comfort of assumptions

Most decisions about agriculture made from a distance rely on a familiar set of shortcuts.

Farmers know what to do. Technology is accessible. Operational capacity already exists.

Sometimes, these assumptions are true.

In certain regions. For certain crops. At certain scales. Under specific market conditions.

In others, the reality is almost the opposite. Limited access to extension. Fragile balance sheets. Informal land arrangements. Short-term contracts. Climate volatility that reshapes calendars every season.

The issue is not that assumptions exist. Every decision relies on them.

The issue is forgetting that they are provisional.

Agriculture does not offer an average reality. It offers a patchwork of contexts that behave very differently under the same decision.

Frameworks struggle with this by design. They prefer consistency. Fields rarely provide it.

There is no single field reality

One of the most persistent errors in agricultural strategy is treating “the field” as a uniform place.

It isn’t.

Capital structure changes everything. So does access to credit and the timing of repayment cycles. Governance varies widely, even within the same country. Informal agreements often coexist with formal contracts. Climate risk behaves differently across regions and seasons. Labor conditions, enforcement, and safety standards are uneven and fragile.

The same decision that creates opportunity in one context can represent existential risk in another.

From the outside, these differences can look like noise. From the inside, they determine who survives a bad season and who doesn’t.

This is where many well-intentioned agricultural strategies begin to drift away from reality.

Regenerative agriculture as a magnifier

Regenerative agriculture is often presented as a solution layer. A way to reduce long-term risk, improve resilience, and align environmental and economic outcomes.

In principle, that logic holds.

In practice, regenerative transitions do something else as well. They magnify weak decisions.

They stretch timelines. They change cost structures. They shift where and when risk materializes. They reduce the margin for error in the short term, even when long-term outcomes improve.

When decisions are well calibrated to local realities, regenerative practices can strengthen systems.

When they are not, they expose fragility faster than conventional models ever did.

Regenerative agriculture does not create risk.

It reveals where risk already lives.

The risks that rarely show up early

Many of the risks that shape agricultural outcomes are invisible during early conversations.

They don’t sit neatly in spreadsheets. They don’t show up in pilot design. They don’t fit comfortably into investment memos or corporate roadmaps.

Some affect cash flow and timing. Others emerge through refinancing cycles or counterparty behavior. Some are tied to local governance gaps, informal arrangements, or land tenure uncertainty. Labor and worker safety risks can turn operational issues into legal and reputational exposure overnight. Currency movements can reshape returns faster than any agronomic improvement. Legal enforcement often behaves differently in practice than it does on paper.

Most of these risks only become visible when something breaks.

By then, exposure has already shifted — often far away from where decision makers assumed it sat.

Why pilots feel reassuring

Pilot projects and success stories play an important role. They show what can work under controlled conditions. They build confidence. They reduce uncertainty around specific practices.

What they rarely do is surface structural fragility.

Pilots are designed to succeed. Variability is reduced. Context is curated. Support is concentrated. Risk is quietly absorbed by actors who rarely appear in final presentations.

When these pilots become the basis for scale, the hidden assumptions travel with them.

The risk does not disappear.

It simply moves.

Where decisions actually fail

Agricultural strategies rarely fail because farmers cannot adapt.

They fail because decisions are made before exposure is truly understood.

Not exposure in theory. Exposure in practice.

Who absorbs losses in the first bad season. Who carries timing risk. Who has flexibility when contracts tighten. Who can survive a delay, a shock, or a broken assumption.

Agriculture does not punish ambition. It punishes abstraction.

The field is remarkably forgiving of well-designed decisions. It is unforgiving of shortcuts.

Sitting with the right questions

Before acting, scaling, or deploying capital, decision makers would benefit from sitting with questions that frameworks tend to skip.

Where does this decision hurt first if it fails? Who absorbs the initial loss? What assumptions stop holding outside ideal conditions? Which contexts are implicitly excluded? Who on the ground lives with the consequence of getting this wrong?

These questions are uncomfortable because they slow things down.

They also prevent strategies from breaking quietly later.

A quieter conclusion

Agriculture is not too complex to understand.

We just tend to simplify it too early.

Regenerative practices are not the problem. Neither are farmers. Or capital. Or intent.

The real risk emerges when decisions are made with clean logic but incomplete awareness.

Awareness comes before strategy. Strategy comes before action.

The field always enforces that order.

My role in this conversation

I don’t advise on regenerative practices.

I work with decision makers who need to make agricultural decisions that won’t break when they hit the field.

My focus is understanding where exposure actually sits, how risk moves across the chain, and which assumptions quietly determine outcomes long before results show up in reports.

Book your discovery call (FREE)

Introduction: a conversation that changed the framing

A few weeks ago, I shared a post questioning whether regenerative agriculture, as it is often discussed today, can realistically feed a growing global population.

My argument was straightforward. Regenerative agriculture can and should be part of the future of food systems, but only if it is approached strategically. That means thinking long-term while explicitly planning how short-term losses will be absorbed, particularly by producers during the transition phase.

The discussion that followed was constructive and revealing. One follower, a strong supporter of regenerative agriculture, suggested a follow-up article. His perspective was thoughtful, but it leaned toward a more ideological framing, skeptical of business-led or market-driven approaches.

That exchange highlighted a pattern I see frequently with executives and sustainability leaders.

The core disagreement around regenerative agriculture is not agronomic.
It is not even environmental.

It is strategic.

This article builds on that conversation to examine when regenerative agriculture genuinely reduces risk, and when, despite good intentions, it introduces new forms of exposure into supply chains and balance sheets.

The wrong question framing

Most discussions around regenerative agriculture still begin with the wrong question.

Can regenerative agriculture feed the world?
Is it better than conventional agriculture?
Is it the “right” model?

These questions are emotionally powerful but strategically weak.

In the dialogue that inspired this article, the implicit assumption was that if regenerative agriculture is the superior system, business structures should adapt around it. Scale, economics, and supply stability would follow.

This assumption is precisely where risk enters.

Regenerative agriculture is not a single model. It is a broad set of practices applied across very different production realities, margins, climates, and supply chain architectures. Treating it as a unified alternative obscures the operational trade-offs executives are responsible for managing.

The relevant question is not whether regenerative agriculture should scale, but how it scales without destabilizing producers, procurement systems, and long-term supply reliability.

The hidden trade-off

In my original post, one point generated the most tension: the need to explicitly acknowledge and plan for short-term losses during regenerative transitions.

This is where ideological and strategic perspectives diverge most clearly.

Regenerative agriculture is often discussed as a net positive system. Over time, that may be true. But transitions are rarely linear.

In the early years, risk increases before it decreases. Yield variability can rise. Costs often move before benefits. Producers carry uncertainty long before resilience is realized.

A strategic approach accepts this reality and designs mechanisms to manage it. An ideological approach assumes the system will work because it should.

Ignoring this trade-off does not eliminate it. It simply transfers risk upstream, usually to producers least able to absorb it.

What breaks at scale

The difference between aspiration and execution becomes visible when regenerative initiatives move beyond pilots.

Economics: ROI without a capture mechanism

At scale, executives eventually ask where the return on investment sits.

In many regenerative programs, ROI is framed as avoided future risk rather than captured economic value. Benefits are projected across long horizons, while contracts, pricing structures, and procurement mandates operate on much shorter cycles.

If ROI cannot be captured contractually or reflected in sourcing economics, it remains theoretical. This is one of the central challenges of regenerative agriculture scalability.

Incentives: the unresolved “who pays” question

Every regenerative transition has costs. Training, learning curves, yield variability, monitoring, and adaptation do not disappear because intent is good.

If producers are expected to absorb these costs indefinitely, adoption stalls. If buyers absorb them without time limits or performance criteria, programs weaken financially.

Without explicit answers to who pays, for how long, and under what conditions, regenerative initiatives accumulate friction instead of resilience.

Governance: ambition without authority

Many organizations set regenerative targets without aligning authority across functions.

Sustainability teams define goals. Procurement teams manage contracts. Finance teams manage risk. When trade-offs arise, sustainability ambitions often lose quietly.

This is not a cultural failure. It is a governance failure.

Metrics without enforcement mechanisms create reporting systems, not resilient supply chains.

Supply risk: complexity mistaken for resilience

Regenerative sourcing is often justified as diversification.

In practice, it can increase exposure if not carefully designed. Fragmented supplier bases, uneven adoption, and dependence on localized performance can introduce new sourcing risks, especially in climate-sensitive regions.

Complexity alone does not equal resilience.

The Regenerative Risk-to-Advantage Framework

To move beyond belief-based debates, executives need a business lens grounded in risk and execution.

The Regenerative Risk-to-Advantage Framework consists of four elements.

Risk reallocation examines where risk moves during transition. If risk is simply pushed upstream, the system becomes more fragile.

Economic capture focuses on who captures value and when. If ROI exists only beyond contract horizons, it will not scale.

Governance fit evaluates whether incentives, metrics, and enforcement are aligned across functions.

Supply architecture assesses whether regenerative sourcing simplifies or complicates the system. Complexity without control increases exposure.

This framework shifts the discussion from principles to architecture.

Brazil and the Reverte program as a real-world stress test

Few environments test regenerative models as rigorously as Brazil.

Brazil combines scale, climate volatility, heterogeneous producers, and intense margin pressure. It is unforgiving to concepts that work only under ideal conditions.

This is why the Reverte program is instructive.

Reverte was designed from the outset as a supply system, not a pilot or a branding initiative. Today, it already covers more than 300,000 hectares, which forces discipline around scalability, economics, and governance.

Each element of the Regenerative Risk-to-Advantage Framework is reflected in its architecture.

Risk reallocation: Transition risk is explicitly acknowledged and shared across multiple actors. The program does not assume producers can absorb short-term volatility alone.

Economic capture: Value creation is grounded in increasing and sustained long term crop demand, not abstract future benefits. This creates a clearer path for ROI to be retained within the system.

Governance fit: Incentives, technical support, and performance expectations are aligned. Sustainability goals are embedded into sourcing structures rather than layered on top.

Supply architecture: The program is designed to scale across diverse producers in related geographies, without excessive fragmentation, reducing dependency on isolated high-performing farms.

Reverte illustrates a critical point of this article. Regenerative agriculture can scale, but only when treated as a strategic redesign of the supply system, not as an ideological objective.

A closing question and next step

The conversation that inspired this article was respectful and well-intentioned. But it exposed a divide that executives can no longer ignore.

Regenerative agriculture will not scale on conviction alone.
And it will not survive if treated as a moral position disconnected from business risks and reality.

The real question is strategic:

Are you designing regenerative systems that intentionally manage risks, or assuming risk will disappear because the system is “better”?

If you want to pressure-test your own regenerative initiatives against real-world constraints, you can start with a structured evaluation.

👉 Assess your regenerative strategy here:

Assess here (FREE)

That assessment is often where the difference between regenerative intent and regenerative advantage becomes clear.

Share

On January 3, 2026, global risk committees were jolted awake.

The United States confirmed a direct intelligence operation that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro. The diplomatic fallout spread quickly across Latin America. Markets reacted. Headlines exploded. Emergency calls were scheduled.

For many European food companies sourcing from Brazil and the region, this moment crystallized what they believed would define 2026. Geopolitics.

But here is the uncomfortable reality.

Wars, elections, and diplomatic shocks rarely break food supply chains on their own.
Financial and operational fragility is what turns shocks into disruption.

And that fragility is already visible inside Brazil’s agricultural system.

The Risk Narrative Everyone Shares

Most senior executives are aligned on what they believe are the main risks for 2026.

Geopolitical instability in Latin America, specially after the Venezuela operation.
Extreme climate events disrupting harvests.
Regulatory pressure from EUDR enforcement.
Trade tensions between China, the US, and Europe affecting grain flows.

None of these concerns are wrong. They are obvious. They are loud. They dominate boardroom conversations.

The problem is not what companies are looking at.

The problem is what they are not.

The Blind Spot. Financial Fragility Inside the Supply Chain

While executives debate geopolitics, a quieter risk has been compounding across Brazil’s agricultural backbone.

Credit stress.

Over the last eighteen months, Brazil’s agribusiness sector has experienced a sharp increase in defaults, judicial recovery filings, and credit tightening.

State lender Banco do Brasil, one of the largest financiers of farmers and agribusiness operators, reported record levels of non performing agricultural loans in 2025. Provisions increased. Credit criteria tightened. Liquidity became selective.

At the same time, requests for judicial recovery in agribusiness rose sharply. Data from credit agencies and sector analysts shows increases exceeding 100 percent in some segments, not only among producers, but also among intermediaries, input suppliers, and service providers.

This matters more than most sourcing teams realize.

Agriculture is a capital intensive business. Seeds, fertilizer, machinery, storage, transport, and export operations are financed months before revenue materializes. When credit tightens or disappears, production does not stop because of geopolitics. It stops because cash flow breaks.

And when cash flow breaks, contracts become irrelevant.

Why 2026 Is a Turning Point

Some executives will argue that financial stress in Brazilian agriculture is not new.

They are correct.

What is new is the context.

First, the geopolitical shock in Venezuela reinforced a false sense of where risk originates. It pulled attention outward, toward events that feel dramatic but remain external to daily operations.

Second, margins across several Brazilian crops have been compressed by rising costs, volatile prices, and uneven productivity. This weakens balance sheets over consecutive seasons, not in isolated years.

Third, the financial buffer that previously absorbed shocks has disappeared. Cheap credit is gone. Banks are less patient. Input suppliers are less flexible. Insurance does not cover liquidity gaps.

In 2026, there is no cushion left.

That is what transforms a long term vulnerability into an immediate risk.

Where Companies Are Getting It Wrong

Most European food companies believe they are managing supply risk properly.

Procurement focuses on price and volume security.
Sustainability teams focus on compliance and documentation.
Risk teams focus on geopolitical exposure and climate scenarios.

Each function does its job well.

Together, they miss the point.

If your risk model treats suppliers as scorecards instead of financial and operational entities, you are not sourcing. You are hoping nothing breaks.

A supplier can be fully compliant with EUDR requirements and still be one liquidity shock away from operational failure.

A producer can have excellent agronomic performance and still collapse if credit lines are pulled mid season.

A logistics partner can meet every audit requirement and still shut down if an upstream default cascades through the system.

Documents do not move soybeans. Cash does.

The Questions Leaders Should Be Asking Now

Executives preparing for 2026 should pause and ask different questions.

Who actually finances my suppliers, beyond the first tier?
How leveraged are key producers and intermediaries in my supply chain?
Which actors depend on short term credit to operate?
What happens if a distributor or originator enters judicial recovery before harvest?
Do we have visibility beyond contracts into balance sheet health?

These questions feel uncomfortable because they challenge long standing sourcing models.

They also separate companies that absorb disruption from those that react to it.

A Different Lens for 2026

The central mistake companies make is assuming that the biggest risks are the most visible ones.

In reality, supply chains rarely break where everyone is looking.

They break where fragility has been quietly accumulating.

In Brazil and across Latin America, that fragility is financial and operational. It sits inside farms, intermediaries, logistics providers, and financing structures. It does not announce itself with headlines.

And by the time it becomes visible, it is already too late to manage reactively.

2026 will not punish obvious risks.
It will expose structural ones.

Companies that recognize this now will plan differently, source differently, and allocate capital differently.

Those that do not will spend the year explaining disruptions they never modeled.

Share

PS: Most agricultural risks do not emerge in the field.
They emerge when financial and operational fragility is ignored in sourcing and risk decisions.
That is what my advisory work focuses on: helping food and ingredient companies sourcing from Brazil and Latin America identify and manage structural risk across finance, operations, governance, and incentives.
This is advisory for leaders accountable for continuity and results, not narratives.

More details of the Advisory Services

Editor’s Note
COP30 placed Brazilian agribusiness under an unusually sharp global lens. This publication brings together two complementary perspectives on what that exposure really means.

The first article, written by Fabrício Peres, analyzes how Europe, investors, and global buyers interpreted Brazil’s performance, with a focus on supply chains, regulatory risk, governance, and long-term market access. It reflects an international, risk-based reading of COP30 and its implications for companies sourcing from Brazil.

The second article offers a guest perspective by Bruna Forte, grounded in the national, economic, and geopolitical context. Her analysis explores how Brazil positioned its agribusiness domestically, the opportunities emerging from the green economy, and the structural challenges that remain.

Read together, these two perspectives show why COP30 was not just a climate conference for Brazil, but a strategic inflection point for agribusiness, capital, and global credibility.

COP30: How Europe Read Brazil and What It Means for Global Supply Chains

By Fabrício Peres

COP30: How Europe Read Brazil and What It Means for Global Supply Chains

COP30 reinforced a signal Europe had already been sending: there has been real progress on adaptation and forest mechanisms, but the world remains far from the pace required to mitigate emissions. For companies that depend on Brazilian supply chains, this has direct implications for regulatory risk, cost of capital, and market access.

In practice, the conference placed Brazil in a paradoxical position. The country emerged as a protagonist in climate solutions while remaining one of the largest sources of land-use risk. This was how European governments, analysts, and outlets such as Reuters, Financial Times, and Carbon Brief interpreted the event: progress, yes, but insufficient to sustain full long-term confidence. Given Brazil’s recurring political uncertainty, this reading is hardly surprising.

1. What Europe Saw at COP30

1.1. Recognized Advances

Adaptation finance
The decision to triple global adaptation finance by 2035 was viewed as a concrete gain. For Europe, this improves predictability for tropical countries, where global agricultural supply chains face the highest climate risks.

Forests and the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF)
The forest mechanism announced drew attention for linking forest conservation payments with governance focused on local communities. Euronews, Reuters, and WRI highlighted three elements: a 0.5 percent annual deforestation cap, a minimum of 20 percent of resources allocated to Indigenous peoples and traditional communities, and an initial one-billion-dollar contribution to anchor the model.

For European stakeholders, TFFF is among the first instruments to effectively combine scale, governance, and financial viability.

Constructive diplomacy
Reports from WRI, CSIS, and Carbon Brief acknowledged that the host country worked consistently to build consensus on forests, adaptation, and finance, even without equivalent advances on mitigation.

1.2. Limitations Identified by Europe

The final text lacked a robust timeline for fossil fuel phase-out, frustrating EU expectations.

Reuters and Carbon Brief emphasized that, despite new announcements, the world remains off track for the 1.5°C goal.

European think tanks also noted that agriculture, land use, and mitigation are still treated in an insufficiently integrated way. For analysts who see climate as a system, this remains a central flaw. While agriculture gained more visibility than in past conferences, it is still handled as a parallel agenda rather than a core pillar.

2. How Europe Interpreted Brazil’s Performance

Europe’s reading is less political and more institutional. What matters is coherence between public policy, real data, and governance capacity.

2.1. Recognized Strengths

Consistent deforestation reduction
Reuters reported a significant decline in deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado between 2023 and 2025. For European markets, consistent numbers matter more than rhetoric and reinforce the perception of regained control and enforcement.

Centrality in forest solutions
Brazil’s leadership in the TFFF consolidated its role as an indispensable actor in carbon and tropical forests. The European Union classified the country as a strategic partner, a rare designation in environmental matters.

Integration of agriculture, forests, and adaptation
The RAIZ initiative was interpreted as a concrete step toward aligning agricultural productivity with restoration. This matters for European supply chains that rely on Brazil and are increasingly prioritizing land-use efficiency.

2.2. Highlighted Fragilities

Structural volatility
While the drop in deforestation is positive, analysts note that Brazil still leads in absolute tropical forest loss. The risk of reversal remains high, and investors are well aware of it.

The Cerrado as a critical zone
Studies cited by European media show that native vegetation conversion in the Cerrado is already undermining agricultural productivity, including soy. Analysis by Zero Carbon Analytics, reported by Reuters, points to potential losses of 9.4 billion dollars in soy production between 2013 and 2023 due to climate regime changes driven by vegetation loss.

Additional reports indicate that roughly half of the Cerrado has already been converted, altering rainfall and drought patterns with direct impacts on yields. This is where environmental risk becomes business risk.

Beef traceability
Difficulties in monitoring indirect suppliers remain one of the most sensitive issues. From a European perspective, this directly affects regulatory risk assessments, especially in light of the EUDR.

3. How Brazilian Agribusiness Was Perceived After COP30

Europe’s assessment is technical. Three narratives stand out.

3.1. An indispensable asset with elevated risk

Europe’s dependence on Brazil for soy, beef, coffee, corn, and orange juice is clear, but it comes with caution. The postponement of the EUDR, reported by Reuters, reveals a fragmented landscape: Brazilian exporters have advanced in preparation, European importers have not fully harmonized systems, and regulatory uncertainty raises compliance costs.

3.2. Growing expectations for real governance

The dominant message is straightforward. Brazil has shown it can reduce deforestation, but Europe wants to see continuity anchored in robust governance and verifiable traceability. This lens is applied directly to soy, beef, and coffee.

3.3. Agribusiness as a climate innovation vector

The positive reception of the RAIZ initiative, integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems, and low-emission solutions signals a turning point. Brazilian agribusiness is increasingly seen as a potential climate innovation corridor in restoration, carbon, and land-use efficiency.

In several technical assessments, Brazil appears simultaneously as the world’s greatest challenge and its greatest opportunity at the food, climate, and forests nexus.

4. The European Synthesis After COP30 and What It Means for Brazilian Companies

Europe’s balance can be summarized in four points:

1. COP30 delivered practical advances in adaptation and forest systems.

2. Global mitigation remains insufficient, increasing pressure on land-use-intensive countries.

3. Brazil expanded its credibility through deforestation reduction and leadership in forest mechanisms.

4. Brazilian agribusiness remains at the center of Europe’s radar and may either capture reputation and investment or amplify risk depending on progress in traceability, regulatory compliance, and territorial governance.

For companies exporting to Europe, the debate is no longer about reducing deforestation. The central issue is proving the ability to sustain that reduction over time through consistent governance, verifiable traceability, and regulatory alignment.

Those who structure this first are likely to secure stable market access, reputational advantage, lower compliance costs, and increasingly, access to cheaper capital.

The transition that will define Brazil’s positioning in the coming years is simple: moving from isolated performance to institutional permanence.

Share

Developments from COP30: Brazilian Agribusiness at the Center of the Green Economy

Guest Perspective

By Bruna Forte — Guest Perspective

Dear producer,

This article on COP30 comes directly from our analyses in forums and debates held before and after the event in Belém. The goal is to show how global problems and challenges can turn into major opportunities for the sector. Brazil has everything it needs to lead a positive green economy, with agribusiness at the heart of sustainable innovation.

To provide a full 360-degree view, this piece brings together Bruna Forte’s national and geopolitical perspective and Fabrício Peres’ international and strategic lens.

Brazilian Agribusiness Showing Its Strength at COP30

Brazilian agribusiness delivered a notable performance at COP30. Innovations were presented that go far beyond the farm gate, integrating the entire value chain to promote a positive and profitable socio-environmental transition aligned with the principles of the Positive Green Economy.

Roberto Rodrigues, former Minister of Agriculture, acted as the sector’s special envoy and main interlocutor at COP30. This was a sound decision that consolidated him as the unified voice of Brazilian agribusiness.

A traditional vulnerability, communication, is starting to be overcome. Agribusiness expressed itself clearly and stood out in an ideologically charged and challenging environment. The AgriZone space was among the most visited, featuring presentations on Brazil’s agricultural achievements and the release of strategic documents, including Embrapa’s contributions to the global climate effort and updated land-use studies.

Opening the Gates to a Trillion-Dollar Global Market

Within the economic pillar of the positive green economy, COP30 reinforced Brazil’s potential to capture value from low-carbon transitions. An energy matrix that is 89 percent renewable, combined with agricultural productivity twice that of the U.S. in soy, creates an unmatched competitive advantage.

The real leap comes from integrated value chains. The RAIZ program aims to restore degraded agricultural land and mobilize billions in climate-resilient agriculture investments, supporting the goal of tripling adaptation finance by 2035.

Brazilian agtech innovation also stood out, with autonomous, solar-powered solutions demonstrating the country’s capacity to export high-value technology.

Bioenergy was another highlight. Brazilian ethanol, with efficiency gains across its lifecycle, received attention within FAO discussions on sustainable agrifood systems. With advances in the green hydrogen framework, Brazil could scale production, decarbonize industry, and generate millions of jobs. Green steel produced with planted forest charcoal further completes this cycle.

Projections point to 1.4 trillion reais in additional revenues by 2030 and three million green jobs, not through charity, but through strategy that turns emissions into assets.

Carbon Geopolitics and the BRICS Axis

Geopolitically, COP30 positioned Brazil as a key player in a divided world. With U.S. absence, China and Brazil filled the vacuum, particularly through leadership in carbon market coalitions. The global carbon credit gap is massive, and Brazil has the potential to convert this into significant export value, provided its emissions system is fully regulated.

A potential BRICS 2.0 carbon alliance could emerge, with Brazil supplying removals, Russia acting as a transition fuel provider, China delivering green manufacturing, and India driving demand. This could reshape a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, depending on geopolitical developments over the next two years.

Green Sovereignty and Invisible Threats

COP30 exposed Brazil’s vulnerabilities, particularly in sanitation, public services, and territorial governance. Climate insurance, illegal deforestation driven by organized crime, and the need for transparent forest funds were central themes.

The conference also highlighted the importance of agro-industrialization, payment for environmental services, and the strategic role of rare earth minerals. Brazil’s development path, including energy choices and resource exploration, must balance sovereignty, social progress, and environmental responsibility.

Final Message to Producers

Predictability is no longer tied solely to production. It is embedded in economic and geopolitical pillars that must now be part of risk analysis. Tools such as rural insurance, operational efficiency, environmental asset monetization, and diversification are no longer optional.

The challenge ahead is clear: feeding a global population of 9.7 billion people by 2050 will require a 70 percent increase in food production. COP30 made one thing evident. The world depends on Brazilian agribusiness.

PS: Most regenerative initiatives fail not in the field, but in decision rooms. That’s why I developed a scorecard that helps you identify where your regenerative strategy is structurally fragile: across governance, incentives, scale readiness, and evidence. It’s a practical reality check for leaders accountable for results, not narratives.

FREE Scorecard

I recently began working with a company that had been investing in regenerative agriculture for several years. The intention was understandable. They wanted coherence with the corporate narrative of sustainable production while also showing progress toward carbon commitments. It looked responsible on paper and it followed market sentiment. But inside the company, the program remained stuck in permanent pilot mode. Multiple regions, enthusiastic teams, significant budgets, and yet no clarity on whether the work was producing any real progress.

The conversations were always the same. Meetings filled with discussions on KPIs that were interesting but never decisive. Indicators that looked sophisticated but did not answer the essential question of whether the soil was improving or whether the company was becoming more resilient. Teams debated measurement frameworks without knowing what success should look like. The program had become a collection of well intentioned initiatives with no strategic anchor, guided more by the momentum of the trend than by the needs of the business.

Everything changed when a new leadership team arrived. Without attachment to past investments, they began asking what the work was supposed to achieve and why the company was investing so much in something that had not matured. It quickly became clear that the program did not solve any business problem. It did not reduce exposure, stabilize quality, strengthen farmer relationships, or protect long term supply. It survived because it sounded right, not because it worked.

This example is not an outlier. It reflects a recurring pattern across the industry. Companies embrace regenerative agriculture because the narrative is strong and expectations are rising, but they neglect the foundational question. What problem is this approach meant to solve. When a program begins with the trend and not with the diagnosis, the outcome is predictable. Years of pilots, unclear metrics, frustrated teams, and little impact on the actual resilience of the supply chain.

Regeneration Treated as a Purpose Instead of a Strategy

Regenerative agriculture has become a symbol of responsible sourcing. But symbols cannot manage supply volatility or improve soil function. Narratives do not fix erosion or water stress. Companies often jump into practices before understanding conditions. They select metrics before establishing baselines. They focus on carbon before understanding the ecological and agronomic processes that carbon depends on.

When regeneration is treated as an end in itself, the result is a fragile program. It loses direction when budgets tighten or leadership changes. It becomes a reporting exercise rather than an operational strategy. And the work drifts away from the farmer reality it depends on.

Regeneration fails not because the idea is wrong but because most programs are designed as storytelling tools rather than resilience strategies.

Why This Structural Flaw Is Larger Than It Appears

A recurring weakness in many programs is the absence of baselines. Without knowing the initial condition of the soil and water system, it is impossible to know whether the landscape is improving or deteriorating. Yet many companies skip this step due to pressure to launch quickly or demonstrate early progress. This leads to a situation where data is collected but cannot guide decisions. Dashboards look complete but remain useless for operational planning.

Another problem is treating practices as outcomes. Practices describe what a farmer does, not the condition of the system. Their effectiveness varies dramatically by region, climate, soil type, farmer capability, and historical land use. What works in northern Europe may fail in central Brazil. What improves resilience in one region may increase exposure in another. When companies rely on practices as indicators of success, they cannot understand the real trajectory of risk.

There is also a persistent communication gap between corporate teams and farmers. Corporate language revolves around ESG commitments, carbon targets, internal scorecards, and external expectations. Farmers operate in a world of soil response, rainfall variability, yield risk, cash flow, and daily survival. When these perspectives do not connect, programs are designed in abstraction and then implemented in fields that do not match the assumptions behind the design.

Finally, regenerative agriculture often becomes ideological. For some people, it embodies an agricultural philosophy and a vision for how production should operate. But companies must operate on economics. When ideology dominates design, programs become romantic, inconsistent, and difficult to defend internally.

The Perspective That Rarely Appears in the Public Debate

What is missing from most discussions is a simple truth. Regenerative agriculture is not about agriculture. It is about risk. It is a framework for strengthening the ecological foundation of production so that supply becomes more predictable and less vulnerable to shocks.

When the soil retains more water, yield variability decreases.
When biological activity improves, dependence on synthetic inputs falls.
When erosion is controlled, productivity becomes more stable across seasons.
When farmers see consistent results, trust grows and relationships last longer.
When exposure to weather extremes declines, cost structures become more manageable.

This is the real function of regeneration. It reduces fragility. The problem is that most programs are not designed with this purpose in mind. They are designed to satisfy narrative expectations rather than operational needs.

What Companies Should Do Before Launching or Resetting Regenerative Programs

The first step is to define the business problem. If a company cannot identify the source of instability in its supply system, no regenerative strategy will generate value. The drivers may be yield volatility, declining quality, farmer turnover, climate exposure, water constraints, regional dependency, or increasing reliance on synthetic inputs. Without this diagnosis, the strategy becomes directionless.

The second step is to establish a measurement architecture before any pilot begins. This includes baselines for soil, water, carbon, and biodiversity, along with a concise set of indicators that reflect both agronomic conditions and business outcomes. Data should support operational decisions, not just reporting requirements.

Governance is the third pillar. Agronomists and soil scientists must play a central role. Procurement and sustainability teams must coordinate instead of operating in parallel. Farmers must receive clear expectations and feedback loops. Governance is what allows the program to survive leadership changes instead of collapsing under new priorities.

The final step is to convert data into decisions. Regeneration only creates value when it influences where to invest, where exposure is increasing, which farmers require support, which regions offer long term potential, and where the strategy must change. Without decision making, regeneration becomes a collection of activities rather than a resilience system.

Closing Reflection

After supporting companies on this journey, the conclusion is clear. Regenerative agriculture succeeds only when it stops being a slogan and becomes a structured approach to risk management. Supply chains cannot remain stable while the ecological systems beneath them erode. Regeneration is not attractive because it is fashionable. It is necessary because resilience requires it.

Companies that understand this will design programs that are credible, measurable, and grounded in agronomic and economic logic. Those that do not will remain trapped in pilot mode, wondering why nothing moves forward.

If your company wants a regenerative agriculture strategy that delivers real outcomes in the field and clarity in the boardroom, begin with one question. What risk must this program solve?

PS: I developed a program to help companies have more clarity on how to implement Regenerative Agriculture at scale and addressing business and supply challenges. More details here.

Share

The Birth of the Agromyther

Every industry has a blind spot.

In global agriculture and food supply chains, that blind spot has a name. Not a person. Not a movement. A trap.

The Agromyther mindset.

It appears when smart, well-intentioned people advocate about agriculture, sourcing and sustainability without the agronomic, biological or field context needed to understand real trade-offs.

This mindset exists because modern life made food production almost invisible. When 98 percent of society does not produce food, when algorithms reward outrage over accuracy, and when complexity is replaced by moral certainty, myths feel more intuitive than science.

The Agromyther is not just someone out there. It is a pattern. A shortcut anyone can fall into when distance replaces understanding.

I know because I have many friends and family that fell into it.

And that is exactly why the corporate world must confront it now. The future of global agriculture and supply resilience depends on it.

What the Agromyther Mindset Really Looks Like

The Agromyther mindset is not an ideology. It is a form of oversimplification that cuts across societies, functions, sectors and continents.

It appears when strong opinions about sustainable sourcing, procurement, climate action or agricultural risk are shaped without field experience or agronomic grounding.

It shows up when a policy advisor drafts rules without consultation with producers. When a journalist interprets crop systems through an urban lens. When a sustainability team compresses complex transitions into slogans. When executives set sourcing targets from thousands of kilometers away.

None of this is malicious. It is the unintended consequence of a world disconnected from soil reality.

But the impact on supply chains is real. Sometimes costly. Increasingly strategic.

Especially for companies sourcing from Latin America and other high-relevance producing regions such as Africa and Asia.

The Myths That Distort Reality And Why They Mislead Organizations

Agromyths feel harmless on social media. Until they become the basis for sourcing rules, ESG frameworks, reporting decisions, or regulatory pressure.

Below are the most powerful myths that distort how companies interpret risk, sustainability and agricultural performance.

Myth 1: “Pesticides are always bad.”

Reality: Toxicity, purpose and dose vary widely.
Business impact: Overly rigid policies increase yield instability and supply volatility.

Myth 2: “Conventional farming is harmful and organic is safe.”

Reality: Organic systems also use pesticides; safety comes from management, regulation and agronomy.
Business impact: Label-driven sourcing increases cost without improving real risk management.

Myth 3: “GMOs are dangerous.”

Reality: GM crops are among the most studied technologies in the world.
Business impact: Avoiding biotech reduces resilience and operational efficiency.

Myth 4: “Industrial agriculture is bad.”

Reality: Modern agriculture is scientific, data-driven and essential for feeding populations.
Business impact: Rejecting scale undermines sustainability goals such as reduced land use and lower emissions.

Myth 5: “Brazil equals deforestation.”

Reality: Brazil preserves two-thirds of its territory, and illegal deforestation is not representative of legitimate production.
Business impact: Penalizing entire regions weakens diversification and increases dependence on fewer origins.

Myth 6: “Sustainability is only carbon.”

Reality: Soil health, water, biodiversity, income, logistics and governance matter just as much.
Business impact: Carbon-only strategies miss the risks that actually disrupt supply chains.

Myth 7: “Just switch to regenerative.”

Reality: Regeneration requires knowledge, investment, adaptation and time.
Business impact: Slogan-driven timelines create supplier fatigue and unrealistic expectations.

Myth 8: “Consumers want only organic, local and chemical-free.”

Reality: Real behavior is driven by price, convenience and availability.
Business impact: Strategies built on stated preference misallocate resources.

Myth 9: “Europe is safe; Latin America is risky.”

Reality: Risk depends on systems, not geography.
Business impact: Geographic prejudice leads to poor sourcing diversification and misclassification of risk.

The Contradictions Behind Agromyth Thinking

Simplistic narratives collapse when confronted with agricultural reality.

Here are the contradictions that quietly shape public pressure and corporate decision-making:

Rejecting pesticides while demanding flawless produce.
Rejecting efficiency while depending on abundant, low-cost food.
Fearing GMOs while trusting biotech in medicine.
Calling for organic farming while ignoring the economic trade-offs.
Criticizing Brazilian agriculture while consuming Brazilian products daily.
Advocating short supply chains while buying globally produced goods.
Demanding carbon neutrality while resisting the technologies that reduce emissions.
Demonizing monocultures while depending on the same crops that feed humanity.

These contradictions do not make people wrong.
They make systems fragile.

Why the Agromyther Mindset Is a Real Risk for Global Supply Chains

The Agromyther mindset influences boardrooms, ESG discussions, investing, reporting, policy and procurement. It does not act on the soil. It acts on perception. And perception drives decisions.

This is where the damage happens.

1. It drives superficial or misaligned decisions

Absolute targets without feasibility.
Supplier disengagement without context.
Sustainability frameworks designed for optics, not resilience.
Binary thinking that ignores agronomy.

2. It creates phantom reputational risk

Noise becomes more important than evidence.
Companies overinvest in cosmetic initiatives and underinvest in resilience.

3. It fractures internal alignment

Procurement, sustainability, marketing, compliance and investors pull in different directions.
Execution slows. Supply stability suffers.

4. It confuses compliance with resilience

Certificates replace governance.
PDFs replace field intelligence.
Reporting replaces strategy.

5. It distorts understanding of agricultural trade-offs

Agriculture is a system of trade-offs.
Agromyth thinking treats trade-offs as moral failures.

6. It widens the distance between consuming markets and producing regions

Misunderstanding grows.
Trust erodes.
Investment hesitates.
Suppliers disengage.
This is especially severe for companies sourcing from developing geographies.

7. It replaces strategy with emotion

Where supply chains need evidence, data and agronomy, they get slogans, binaries and unrealistic demands.

Emotion becomes louder than execution.

The Anti-Agromyth Manifesto

Correcting Agromyths is not a cultural dispute.
It is a strategic requirement for global supply chains.

Here is what leaders need to remember:

Complexity is not a flaw. It is the system.
Food does not grow on opinions.
Agronomy should shape sustainability, not the other way around.
Farmers are stewards of living systems, not caricatures and villains.
Evidence beats emotion. Always.
Nuance is a competitive advantage in supply-chain strategy.
Distance is a risk factor that must be managed.
Trade-offs are part of truth.
Impact matters more than narrative safety.

This is the foundation of supply resilience and sustainable sourcing.

Conclusion: Why Ending the Agromyther Mindset Is a Business Imperative

The next decade of global food systems will be shaped by volatility: climate, regulation, geopolitics, transparency requirements, origin competition and shifting expectations for sustainability.

In this world, oversimplified narratives are liabilities.
They distort risk.
They exaggerate threats.
They misclassify suppliers.
They drain resources from what creates impact and redirect them to what creates applause.

Ending the Agromyther mindset is not about protecting farmers.
It is about strengthening food security, improving sourcing decisions and ensuring companies operate on evidence, not noise.

The trap will always exist.
The task is ensuring it does not influence the decisions that define the future of global agriculture and global supply chains.

Naming it is the first step.
Correcting it is the strategic one.

Subscribe now

When Climate Hits Home

Last week, just before COP30, southern Brazil offered a brutal reminder that climate disruption is no longer a future scenario — it’s here. A hurricane ripped through Rio Bonito do Iguaçu, in Paraná state, destroying entire houses and rural communities. The year before, historic floods in Rio Grande do Sul submerged cities, wiped out harvests, and displaced thousands of families.

These events exposed the growing vulnerability of rural Brazil. They paralyzed communities, disrupted logistics, and reminded everyone how extreme weather can ripple through the economy. Meanwhile, other producing regions also faced growing climate pressure: in the Cerrado and Midwest, a significant share of soybean and corn areas are now operating outside their ideal climate range, threatening yields; in Minas Gerais, irregular rainfall and drought episodes are forcing coffee growers to adopt costly irrigation and adaptation measures. For global food and ingredient companies, this isn’t a distant tragedy, it’s a preview of what unchecked climate volatility means for security of supply and supply chain resilience.

Today, the world is gathering in Belém for COP30, the first climate conference to take place in the heart of the Amazon. The symbolism is undeniable: the planet’s largest carbon sink hosting the event that could finally connect climate action to the land itself.

If the climate crisis is hitting our fields, perhaps the answer must start there too.

Agriculture Still Seen as Part of the Problem

For decades, agriculture has been portrayed as one of the world’s climate villains. It contributes roughly 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions, through deforestation, soil degradation, livestock, and fertilizer use.

Regulators and investors demand deforestation-free sourcing and Scope 3 emissions disclosure, while consumers want proof of sustainability behind every product. But despite progress, agriculture remains framed as a liability, not a lever.

This view is dangerously outdated. Yes, the sector emits, but it also stores, restores, and regenerates. Agriculture is the only large-scale system capable of pulling carbon from the atmosphere and locking it into the soil.

Yet the global narrative hasn’t caught up. Policymakers still treat agriculture as a sector to monitor, not to empower. And food companies, often under pressure, focus more on compliance than transformation.

30 Years of Climate Talks, Little Impact on Land

The world has held nearly three decades of COPs, but only recently has agriculture entered the conversation. A quick look back explains why:

• Rio 92 (Brazil): The UNFCCC was born. Agriculture wasn’t on the radar.

• Kyoto (1997): Industrial emissions dominated; land use barely appeared.

• Copenhagen (2009): REDD+ emerged, linking climate and forests, a first step toward land-based action.

• Paris (2015): The landmark Paris Agreement opened space for countries to include agriculture in their NDCs, but few did.

• Koronivia (2017): The first UNFCCC workstream formally dedicated to agriculture.

• Glasgow (2021): Global declaration to end deforestation by 2030.

• Dubai (2023): The “Food Systems Declaration” recognized that no climate strategy can succeed without transforming how we produce food.

Thirty years, countless commitments, but limited change on the ground. While global leaders negotiated emissions curves, agriculture received little tangible support, financial or political. Yet the sector kept moving, innovating, and adjusting on its own, striving to stay productive and sustainable amid climate shocks and policy gaps. The gap between conference rooms and farmlands grew wider.

For food and ingredient companies sourcing from Latin America, this gap is more than political. It defines business continuity, brand credibility, and long-term access to sustainable raw materials.

Agriculture as the Solution: The Reverte Case

The tide is turning. The climate conversation is moving from reduction to regeneration and agriculture sits at its center.

Brazil, often targeted for deforestation, now offers proof that large-scale regenerative transformation is possible. The Reverte Program, led by Syngenta in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and local producers, is one of the most concrete examples.

Reverte focuses on restoring degraded pastures in the Cerrado, one of the world’s most critical biomes. By combining soil recovery, crop rotation, integrated crop-livestock-forest systems (ILPF), and precision agronomy, it transforms low-productivity areas into fertile, sustainable farmland.

The program goes beyond agronomy: it monitors carbon, soil health, and biodiversity with satellite data and field metrics. Farmers gain productivity; companies gain traceable, low-carbon supply; ecosystems recover.

I am proud to have led this program from its inception, from the early “Moonshot” concept through its design around 2019/20. This is not philanthropy; it’s business-driven regeneration. It shows how agriculture can deliver measurable climate impact while improving yields and rural incomes.

As I highlighted in previous articles, initiatives like Reverte redefine competitiveness: they turn sustainability from a cost into a capability.

Projects like this prove that the climate agenda won’t be solved in policy documents, but in hectares.

The Missing Link: The Role of Private Sector and Food Supply Chains

If agriculture holds the key to climate balance, the private sector is the hand that turns it.

Governments can set frameworks, but it’s food value chain companies that translate ambition into supply-chain reality. They define sourcing standards, design incentives, and invest where policy often can’t.

The new competitive edge will belong to those who integrate sustainability into operations, not as ESG compliance, but as a core supply resilience strategy.

The concept of “field to market” captures this shift. It means every link in the chain, from the farmer’s field to the end consumer, is connected by traceability, data, and shared accountability.

When sourcing models reward regenerative practices instead of just output, they unlock climate-positive value chains. This is where traceability, deforestation-free verification, and carbon accounting become tools of performance, not punishment.

In the end, supply chain resilience and security of supply depend on the same thing: the health of the ecosystems that sustain production.

The Unseen Opportunity: COP30 as a Stage for a New Narrative

The fact that COP30 will take place in the Amazon is more than symbolic. It’s a reminder that the future of the climate, food, and business systems are intertwined.

Belém could become the turning point where global leaders finally connect commitments to hectares, investments to farmers, and emissions targets to regenerative outcomes.

For Latin American agribusiness, it’s an opportunity to show the world that sustainability and productivity are not opposites, they are interdependent.

For global food and ingredient companies, it’s a call to engage locally, invest in traceable systems, and co-create the regenerative transition.

COP30 shouldn’t be about new declarations. It should be about proof of transformation in the field.

Takeaway

The world has spent three decades debating emissions. The next decade must focus on the soil, where climate, food, and business intersect.

Agriculture isn’t the enemy of the planet. It’s the system that can save it.

As COP30 occurs in Brazil, food and ingredient companies have a responsibility to act.

• Map climate and deforestation hotspots across sourcing regions.

• Partner with local producers to scale regenerative practices.

• Shift from neutral to climate-positive sourcing models.

Through the Field2Trust Sprint, I help companies explore these dimensions in practice, from mapping risks, traceability and regenerative sourcing to climate-positive supply strategies, translating ambition into real progress.

Introduction

For two decades, Europe has shaped the global narrative of sustainable food.
It built some of the world’s most advanced policies, certification systems, and corporate frameworks.
From carbon-neutral promises to regenerative sourcing, the continent positioned itself as the moral benchmark of responsible consumption.

But beneath that confidence lies a growing paradox.
Europe’s food system is increasingly dependent on other continents and the further it distances itself from production, the more fragile it becomes.

This article explores the uncomfortable truth behind Europe’s sustainability story and why resilience will depend less on labels and more on proximity to the land, the people, and the realities that make food possible.

The illusion of leadership

Europe likes to believe it leads the world in sustainable food.
And in some ways, it does, policy frameworks, green finance, traceability systems, consumer awareness.

But beneath that confidence lies a contradiction:
the region that talks most about sustainability produces the least of its own food.

The European Union now imports over half of its agricultural raw materials.
Its supply chains extend across continents, seasons, and moral narratives, all designed to give consumers a sense of responsibility, and companies a sense of control.

The result is a paradox:
Europe’s food system looks cleaner on paper, but more fragile in reality.

The comfortable lie

Sustainability, as practiced in Europe, is built on outsourced complexity.

When deforestation became politically unacceptable, production shifted to the tropics.
When consumers demanded ethical sourcing, companies responded with audits, not partnerships.
When climate neutrality became a KPI, emissions were relocated rather than reduced.

This isn’t hypocrisy.
It’s distance: geographical, cultural, and intellectual.

The more Europe optimized for moral comfort, the less it understood the systems that feed it.

When sustainability becomes branding

For most consumers, “sustainable” means clean packaging, a local label, or a familiar certification.
For companies, it means compliance, risk reduction, and narrative alignment.
For farmers, especially in Latin America or Africa, it often means new costs without new markets.

Every additional metric or reporting demand amplifies the gap between field and headquarters.
And the ones paying the price are the small and mid-size producers, those with the least leverage and the most potential for transformation.

The irony is painful:
Europe’s pursuit of “regenerative” and “climate-smart” supply chains is slowly excluding the very producers it claims to uplift.

Traceability isn’t trust

Europe’s answer to complexity has been technology: traceability platforms, satellite monitoring, data dashboards.
All useful tools, but tools don’t build trust.

Traceability tracks movement. Trust tracks behavior.

And behavior changes only when relationships do.

Supply resilience depends less on data visibility and more on relationship depth, the kind that survives price cycles and policy shifts.
But over the past two decades, relationships in food supply have been replaced by transactions, frameworks, and short-term contracts.

The result is predictable:
Perfect reporting. Fragile systems.

When the moral high ground becomes strategic risk

Europe’s food security and climate credibility are now deeply connected.
And both depend on regions it doesn’t fully understand.

The EUDR (EU Deforestation Regulation) is a case in point.
It’s well-intentioned, ambitious, and politically necessary, but nearly impossible to implement in smallholder-based origins.

By 2026, many of those suppliers may simply exit the EU market.
Not because they deforest, but because they can’t afford to prove they don’t.

For European companies, that means shrinking sourcing options and rising costs.
For farmers, it means more paperwork, less partnership.

The risk isn’t deforestation. It’s disconnection.

The real lesson from the Global South

Spend time in a Brazilian coffee farm, a Colombian cocoa community, or a Kenyan cooperative, and you’ll notice something Europe has forgotten:
Resilience is not a policy. It’s a practice.

Farmers in the tropics have learned to adapt to volatility (weather, prices, politics) by building networks of trust and improvisation.
They can’t afford moral purity, but they understand resilience at a cellular level.

If Europe reframed these producers not as compliance subjects but as strategic partners, it would gain something more valuable than traceability data: adaptive intelligence.

The South produces food, yes, but it also produces resilience knowledge.

From compliance to collaboration

Fixing the system doesn’t require new acronyms.
It requires a mindset shift: from control to cooperation.

That means:

• Investing in productivity instead of policing paperwork.

• Rewarding verified improvement, not bureaucratic perfection.

• Building long-term contracts based on performance and partnership.

Companies that do this are discovering an unexpected benefit:
They become more resilient, not just more compliant.

Because resilience isn’t built by eliminating risk, it’s built by sharing it.

Why this matters now

Climate volatility and regulation are converging faster than supply chains can adapt.
At the same time, Europe’s demographic and cultural trends point toward even greater urban detachment from agriculture.

This is not a communications issue.
It’s a strategic vulnerability.

A continent that outsources both its food and its empathy cannot sustain either leadership or security.

The path forward

Europe still has leverage: financial, regulatory, and intellectual.
What it lacks is proximity.

To rebuild it, three moves will matter most:

1. Re-anchor sourcing in relationships.
   Partnerships that span multiple seasons, share data both ways, and invest in capability, not just compliance.

2. Reward resilience, not rhetoric.
   Create incentives for measurable progress in soil health, water use, and farmer income, not just zero-deforestation claims.

3. Relearn the value of humility.
   Sustainability is not about saving others; it’s about learning with them.

The leadership test

The next decade will reveal whether Europe’s sustainability model was built on conviction or convenience.

If companies keep treating sustainability as a branding exercise, they’ll remain compliant but fragile.
If they start treating it as a strategic relationship, with producers, nature, and consumers, they’ll rediscover what true leadership looks like.

Because leadership isn’t about who shouts “sustainability” the loudest.
It’s about who stays when the headlines fade.

Closing

Every civilization faces a moment when its ideals outgrow its infrastructure.
Europe is reaching that point with sustainability.

The narrative is still strong.
The system beneath it is not.

To fix it, the continent must replace comfort with connection.
Otherwise, the next food crisis won’t be about scarcity,
it will be about trust.

Call to Action

If your company is rethinking how to build real resilience, not just compliance, start with clarity.
The Field2Trust Sprint™ helps food and ingredient companies map their exposure, align procurement and sustainability teams, and design a 90-day action roadmap to turn risk into competitive advantage.

Learn more and request your Sprint here.

This article unpacks how regenerative agriculture transitions play out financially — from payback timelines and yield recovery to real ROI benchmarks in Brazil’s coffee systems. Based on data from Embrapa, FAO, and Imaflora.

The Question Every Producer Is Asking

How long does it take to recover your investment when shifting to regenerative agriculture?
And what happens to productivity while that change unfolds?

These aren’t academic questions. They’re strategic ones — the kind that define sourcing strategies, farm investments, and supplier resilience.

With prices for key crops like coffee, soy, and corn still high, many producers ask: why change what’s working?
The short answer: because it’s working for now, not for what comes next.

Global buyers, financiers, and regulators are moving from a logic of volume to one of verified resilience.
The farms that start this transition early will gain a competitive advantage when sustainability stops being optional and becomes a license to operate under a changing climate.

Why Transition When Prices Are Good

High prices hide deep vulnerabilities — degraded soils, fertilizer dependency, and climate exposure.
A good price doesn’t mean a good system.

Strategic truth: The best time to invest in regeneration is when cash flow is strong — but not through new debt.

Use profitable cycles to self-finance regeneration. Reduce leverage, rebuild soil capital, and turn short-term profits into long-term resilience.

As Embrapa’s analyses on Integrated Crop-Livestock-Forest (ILPF) systems show, returns can appear within 2–8 years depending on system complexity and planning quality. Producers who invest during profitable cycles recover faster because they can reallocate capital without disrupting operations.
(Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril, 2021 — Avaliação Econômica de Sistemas ILPF.)

Transition when you can, not when you must.

What Regenerative Transition Means in Practice

Regenerative agriculture isn’t a label — it’s a redesign of how the farm functions.
It rebuilds soil biology, restores water cycles, and reduces dependence on synthetic inputs.

Projects from Embrapa’s C-Around and Imaflora’s Natural Capital Assessments show that regenerative and conservation systems can increase soil organic carbon by double-digit percentages within a few years and reduce erosion losses dramatically.
These changes make the soil more efficient — it retains nutrients and water better, cutting fertilizer and irrigation needs.

Biological recovery becomes economic efficiency.

The Phases of Regeneration — Financial and Productive Curves

Transition isn’t linear.
It moves through three clear phases — biologically and financially.

Phase 1 — Investment (Years 0–2)

The system resets.

• Capital goes up. Soil correction, fencing, shade trees, and cover crops require upfront investment.

• Yields may fluctuate. A slight dip is normal as soils rebalance.

• Learning curve. Producers adapt management and train teams.

• Cash flow turns negative. It’s the cost of building long-term capacity.
  (Embrapa ILPF 2021; FAO CSA Sourcebook 2020; Ponisio et al., PNAS.)

Strategy: Use high-margin years to invest with your own capital — not with borrowed money.
Good years are for deleveraging, not expanding debt.
(CNA 2022; MAPA, Plano ABC+ 2023.)

Phase 2 — Rebalancing (Years 2–4)

The system starts finding its rhythm.

• Soil biology stabilizes, organic matter increases, and nutrient cycles reestablish.

• Input use drops 15–25%, especially fertilizers and pesticides.

• Operational costs fall, as soil fertility becomes self-sustaining.

• Yields recover to baseline or slightly above by year 3–4, especially when multiple practices (cover crops, shade, rotation) are combined.

• Cash flow stabilizes — often by year 4, cost savings offset early investments.
  (Embrapa ILPF 2021–2023; FAO 2021; MDPI 2022; POST-UK Evidence Review 2025.)

Strategy: Efficiency replaces dependence — and the system begins to pay for itself.

Phase 3 — Regenerative Dividend (Years 5–8+)

Resilience starts compounding.

• Payback usually arrives between years 5–8, depending on system design.

• Margins improve as input dependency drops and yields stabilize.

• Productivity rises 10–15% over baseline in many cases — not because of higher peaks, but because of fewer crashes.

• Carbon and biodiversity gains become measurable, adding asset value and credit potential.
  (Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril 2023; FAO 2023; Imaflora 2023; CGIAR 2022.)

Strategy: At this stage, regeneration is no longer a cost — it’s an advantage that multiplies every season.

Yield and Productivity — What the Evidence Shows

Across studies by Embrapa, FAO, CGIAR, and Imaflora, the pattern is clear: the transition curve pays off.

• Years 1–2: yields can dip 10–20% as the system adjusts.

• Years 3–5: productivity returns to or slightly exceeds conventional levels.

• After year 5: regenerative systems show 30–40% less yield loss under drought and more stable performance.

Field trials from Embrapa Café and Imaflora confirm that soil organic matter rises 10–30% in five years, reducing fertilizer use by 20–30% and improving drought tolerance.

The insight: regeneration doesn’t mean higher peaks — it means fewer crashes.
Predictability is profitability.

The Payback Logic — Economic and Strategic

Regenerative agriculture isn’t an expense — it’s a capital reallocation.
Average payback happens between 5–8 years, depending on crop and reinvestment pace.

In coffee, Imaflora and BSCA (2023) observed positive net present value by year 6.
Rainforest Alliance (2024) found that farms integrating soil and water management regained profitability one year faster than those focused only on carbon.

Lesson: the ROI of regeneration is not just financial — it’s structural.
It shifts the farm’s exposure from external costs to internal efficiency.

The Challenges Producers Face

• Short-term mindset: waiting for immediate payoff delays long-term gains.

• Technical capacity: lack of local expertise and credible advisors.

• Market signals: buyers demand proof but rarely co-invest.

• Cultural inertia: skepticism toward biological inputs persists.

• Credit mismatch: financing cycles shorter than biological cycles.

• Data gaps: few local ROI benchmarks for regenerative transitions.
  (Sources: Embrapa Café, Rede ILPF, Imaflora 2023, FAO/IFAD 2024.)

Translation: the biggest barrier isn’t soil — it’s mindset.

The Benefits — Quantifiable and Strategic

What You Can Measure

• Inputs ↓ 15–30% as soil health recovers.

• Yield stability ↑ 20–40%, reducing risk in bad seasons.

• Soil carbon & water retention ↑ 20–50%.

• ROI +10–20% versus conventional systems.

• Carbon sequestration: 2–5 tCO₂e/ha/year (Embrapa 2024).

• Creditworthiness: better access to green finance.
  (Embrapa, FAO, CGIAR, World Bank, Imaflora 2023–2024.)

What You Can’t Measure — But Feel

• Higher climate resilience.

• Market differentiation and brand credibility.

• Easier succession and talent attraction.

• Stronger community and worker well-being.

• Contribution to local ecosystem recovery.

The farm becomes not only productive — but predictable.
And in agribusiness, predictability is the new profit.

---

<div class=”substack-post-embed”><p lang=”en”>The ROI of Regenerative Agriculture for Food Supply Chains: Turning Compliance Pressure into Competitive Advantage by Fabrício Peres</p><p>How regenerative practices can reduce costs, emissions, and supply risk—while boosting market access and brand trust.</p><a data-post-link href=”https://www.faperes.com/p/the-roi-of-regenerative-agriculture”>Read on Substack</a></div><script async src=”https://substack.com/embedjs/embed.js” charset=”utf-8”></script>

Lessons from Coffee — A Practical Lens

Brazil’s coffee sector shows how the math plays out.
Field pilots across Sul de Minas and Espírito Santo confirm the same financial logic: higher cost upfront, higher resilience later.

• Transition costs concentrate in the first two harvests — soil correction, pruning, and organic inputs.

• Positive cash flow often starts by year 3, when cover crops and biofertilizers stabilize.

• Payback around year 6–7 under stable prices, faster under agroforestry or livestock integration.

• Productivity stabilizes 10–15% above baseline, with smaller yield swings under erratic rain.

• Soil carbon +2–4 tCO₂e/ha, boosting both farm valuation and financing potential.
  (Embrapa Café 2023; Imaflora & BSCA 2023; Embrapa C-Around 2024.)

Insight: The real premium isn’t certification — it’s consistency.
When the soil functions, profit stops depending on price cycles.

The Strategic Takeaway

The key metric isn’t short-term yield — it’s time to resilience.
Producers who reinvest in good years secure competitiveness for the next decade.
Those who wait for crisis face higher costs, weaker soils, and fewer financing options.

Action Point: Use this price cycle to finance your transition.
Strategic Question: When the next downturn comes, will your soil still be producing — or just surviving?

Share

P.S. Since companies must take actions and have a clear direction on the transition to Regenerative Agriculture, I developed a specific program that helps leaders in agri-food industry to turn risks into market advantage.

External references:

• Embrapa ILPF: https://www.embrapa.br/agrossilvipastoril

• FAO Climate-Smart Agriculture: https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture

• Imaflora Café Regenerativo: https://imaflora.org

A Story from Brazil

In Brazil, political and regulatory instability has long been the norm. Every new administration reshuffled institutions, rewrote rules, and undermined credibility. Yet, despite this turbulence, the country advanced, not because Brasília (national capital) offered stability, but because society and business learned to move forward without relying on the state. Farmers organized cooperatives to access markets. Companies built roads and entire cities when government failed. NGOs filled gaps in enforcement with policy schemes. Progress came from initiative, not from waiting.

This Brazilian experience is why the EU’s decision to delay the EUDR (EU Deforestation Regulation) by another year feels familiar. It is not simply about technical readiness or IT systems. It signals that Brussels may not be the reliable compass many expected. And, as in Brazil, the lesson applies: those who wait lose, those who act advance.

The Event and the Signal Behind It

The EU officially announced a 12‑month delay in enforcing the EUDR, citing incomplete IT infrastructure and the risk of trade disruption. On the surface, a technical adjustment. But the real message runs deeper. Europe still seeks to project leadership in the global environmental agenda, even as the larger game is the reorganization of world politics. Timing is awkward: while the EU positions itself as climate regulator of the world, it struggles to maintain relevance in security, trade, and diplomacy. The delay exposes not only a lack of readiness, but also a mismatch between ambition and capacity.

The External Perspective

From the outside, the EU appears weakened. Russia’s war revealed its dependence on fragile energy flows and deep struggle to mediate tension. Tariff disputes with the US damaged industrial competitiveness. The conflict in Palestine highlighted hesitation, with the EU acting as a spectator rather than a shaper of events. In this context, unilateral climate leadership looks disconnected. Rather than reinforcing influence, it risks reinforcing Europe’s isolation. Other blocs may perceive the EUDR as a protectionist barrier rather than a standard to emulate. The geopolitical cost of the delay is not just a lost year for forests but another signal of Europe’s fragile position in a multipolar order.

The Internal Perspective

Within Europe, the consequences are equally critical. Investments already made in traceability systems, satellite monitoring, and certification remain in limbo. Early movers that acted fast cannot capture short‑term returns. Laggards feel justified in postponing further, lowering overall momentum. Institutional trust erodes, as Brussels confirms its reputation for setting rules it cannot implement. Most importantly, supply resilience weakens: without predictable rules, buyers and suppliers cannot plan volumes, contracts, or long‑term investments. Security of supply requires certainty; the delay creates the opposite.

The Business Perspective: Companies in Europe

For companies headquartered and operating in Europe, the lesson is clear: uncertainty is not temporary, it is structural. Geopolitical instability, regulatory hesitation, and fragmented alliances will remain the baseline. Companies that already invested in transparency and traceability are not losing money; they are gaining resilience. They lock in more stable contracts, reduce exposure to price volatility, and build trust with suppliers, investors and consumers. Those that did not invest remain exposed to shocks.

Similarly to the Brazilian experience, companies in Europe must act, not wait for further political and external developments, the implications (and benefits) are real and practical to the business. Some actions available now:

• Strengthen traceability as a resilience tool, not a compliance checkbox.

• Form local partnerships with cooperatives, producer associations, extension services and NGOs to ensure adoption at farm level.

• Strengthen (not withdraw) sectoral alliances to share costs, create common standards, and amplify influence in Brussels.

• Communicate resilience, not compliance: frame transparency as ensuring reliable supply today, not as preparation for a regulation tomorrow.

  ---

The Latin American Perspective: A Hidden Opportunity

For Latin American producers and exporters, the delay is not only uncertainty; it is also opportunity. Those who have already invested in origin proof and transparency can differentiate themselves from pure commodity suppliers. A Brazilian coffee cooperative that traces every bag to a farm is no longer just a commodity exporter but a premium partner. A Peruvian cacao exporter with geolocation data is not interchangeable with mass cocoa but a source of verified, deforestation‑free supply. An Argentinean beef producer with digital traceability is not just selling meat but resilience to European buyers seeking certainty. For these players, proof of origin provides preferential access to Europe regardless of the regulatory timeline.

The Bigger Lesson

The delay of the EUDR does not alter direction. Supply chains will still move toward cleaner, more transparent models. What changes is the pace and the perception of Europe’s capacity to lead. If the EU relies only on unilateral regulation to exert influence, it risks isolation in a multipolar world. For businesses and producers, the formula remains: more transparency equals more predictability; more traceability equals more trust; proactive action equals more resilience. Supply resilience stands above regulation.

Takeaway and Call to Action

The EUDR delay is not relief but uncertainty. For Europe, it exposes the gap between ambition and influence. For companies, it tests whether they will wait for clarity or act to secure supply now. For Latin America, it offers a chance to turn origin into value and escape the commodity trap. The market will reward those who turn risk into advantage. The question remains: Are you preparing your supply chain to comply with Brussels, or to thrive in a multipolar food system where resilience is the only real advantage?

P.S. Since companies must take actions and have a clear direction, I developed a specific program that helps leaders in agri-food industry to turn risks into market advantage.

Introduction

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) will come into effect in 2025. For companies sourcing from Brazil, the stakes could not be higher. Blocked shipments at European ports, reputational damage, and loss of contracts are imminent risks.

Yet, many executives still don’t know how exposed their supply chains are. Do you?

Why Brazil Matters for Sustainable Sourcing

Brazil supplies some of the most scrutinized commodities under the EUDR: soy, beef, coffee, cocoa, and timber. These products are central to global food supply chains, but they also sit at the core of Europe’s deforestation debate.

The challenge: most companies only have partial traceability. Knowing your trader is not enough. Sustainable sourcing from Brazil now requires farm-level geolocation, due diligence documentation, and proof that commodities are deforestation-free after December 2020. Without this, your license to operate in Europe is at risk.

Why Supply Chain Resilience Requires More Than Policies

Having a sustainability policy or supplier code of conduct is no longer sufficient. Regulators, investors, and consumers are demanding evidence. Companies that fail to deliver risk compliance penalties and will lose ground to competitors that can prove EUDR compliance and supply chain resilience.

Introducing the Deforestation Exposure Index

To help companies quickly assess their risk, we created the “Deforestation Exposure Index”. This 7-question quiz reveals whether your company’s sourcing practices have low, medium, or high exposure to deforestation risk.

It takes less than two minutes and provides an immediate score with actionable insights. Think of it as your first checkpoint on the road to sustainable sourcing and risk assessment, and a way to understand whether your Brazilian supply chains could put your European market access in jeopardy.

Why Take the Quiz Now?

1. Immediate results: know your exposure today.

2. Actionable insights: next steps for EUDR compliance.

3. Competitive edge: companies that act early can turn compliance into market advantage.

Don’t wait until shipments are blocked or customers walk away. Take two minutes now to discover your deforestation exposure score.

Start Quiz [FREE]

Introduction

Every week, there’s another headline shaking the global food supply chain and exposing the fragility of sourcing from Brazil and other origins.
US tariffs on Brazilian coffee of 50%. Shipping routes disrupted in the Red Sea. Cocoa harvests in West Africa collapsing under climate stress.

Different regions, different products — but they all point to the same truth: supply has become unpredictable.

For global giants, this is a challenge. They have multiple sourcing hubs, global risk teams, and enough buffer to absorb shocks. For mid-sized European food and ingredient companies sourcing from Brazil or Latin America, it’s existential. One failed harvest, one delayed shipment, and a client can be lost.

Procurement teams in these companies are skilled in what they do best: negotiating contracts, managing margins, and keeping supply flowing. But many are further removed from the realities of farming, climate volatility, and agricultural cycles.

I’ve spent 14 years in agriculture, seeing first-hand how what happens in the field directly shapes contracts, margins, and delivery. That’s the gap I help companies close. And it’s why I believe predictability is now the most valuable asset in the global food trade.

The Problem: Predictability as the Missing Link

Most companies define supply security in terms of volume, quality, and compliance. If they can secure enough product, meet specs, and pass regulatory checks, they believe the job is done.

But in today’s global food supply chain, those conditions are not enough. What truly defines competitive advantage is constancy over time — the ability to deliver season after season despite volatility.

And that’s where the cracks appear:

• In Brazil, droughts and frosts in coffee and soybean supply chains cut harvests and margins collapse — a stark reminder of how sustainable Brazilian agriculture is directly tied to security of supply.

• In Asia, monsoon variability in India or Vietnam makes spice supply swing year to year.

• In Africa, cocoa production is squeezed by climate extremes and political instability, disrupting shipments to Europe.

Mid-sized European food and ingredient companies depend heavily on sourcing Brazil’s agriculture and other regions but lack the diversification power of multinationals. Without predictability, contracts become fragile, margins erode, and client trust evaporates.

Why Compliance Alone Won’t Secure Supply

Regulation is everywhere in today’s food supply chain. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) now defines the rules of sustainable sourcing from Brazil and elsewhere, alongside certification schemes and traceability requirements that affect soy, coffee, and cocoa supply chains.

Compliance gives the license to operate. It protects access to markets and shields companies from regulatory risk.

But compliance cannot prevent a drought from wiping out a harvest. It cannot stop political unrest from blocking a shipping route. It cannot ensure that the same supplier delivers next season.

Many companies put enormous energy into “ticking compliance boxes” while ignoring the broader risk: unpredictability.
One European coffee buyer told me they had all the certifications and audits in place. Yet when the Brazilian harvest collapsed, none of that mattered. One of their farmers reported a 50% cut in yield.

Compliance protects access to markets. But only sustainable sourcing strategies in Brazil compete — turning compliance into resilience and advantage.
Without predictability, compliance becomes a fragile shield: it looks strong, but it won’t secure contracts in practice.

Share

The POS – Predictable Supply Operating System

From my experience, predictable supply doesn’t happen by chance. It requires a system that strengthens sourcing foundations from farm to market.

I call it the POS – Predictable Supply Operating System, built on four pillars:

1. Resilient Production (farm level)
   Predictability starts in the field. In Brazil, this means climate-smart and regenerative agriculture practices that stabilize yields and make Brazilian agriculture sustainability a reality. Farming practices determine whether harvests withstand climate extremes.
   Regenerative agriculture, diversified cropping, and climate-smart methods reduce variability and improve resilience.
   Companies that engage suppliers on practices aren’t just buying crops — they are investing in stability.

2. Reliable Partnerships (supplier level)
   Transactional procurement — annual contracts and price-only negotiations — no longer works in volatile markets.
   Predictability requires trust-based supplier partnerships, where both sides commit long-term.
   When producers have stable demand and fair terms, they prioritize those buyers in times of scarcity.

3. Transparent Compliance (system level)
   Compliance must be embedded into sourcing systems, not treated as a burden.
   When transparency is integrated, it builds confidence with regulators, clients, and investors.
   Done right, compliance becomes a predictability enabler, not a distraction.

4. Market Integration (value level)
   Predictability is not just operational — it is a commercial advantage.
   Reliable sourcing allows companies to build strong market narratives, meet commitments, and justify premium positioning.
   When procurement and marketing align, predictability translates into growth and reputation.

Closing the Gap Between Procurement and Agriculture

Procurement teams know contracts, margins, and supplier management. Farmers work with climate variability, soil, and planting cycles. The disconnect between the two is where predictability is lost.

• A contract may look solid, but if drought hits Brazil— the world’s largest soy and coffee exporter — shipments don’t arrive. Without integrating Brazil supply chain realities into procurement, predictability will always remain fragile.

• A certification may prove compliance, but if unrest closes borders in West Africa, cocoa still doesn’t move.

Bridging this gap means translating field realities into procurement strategy.
It’s about ensuring contracts create incentives for stability in the field, and procurement integrates agricultural realities into decision-making.

Because at the end of the day: contracts don’t move goods, farmers do.
Unless procurement integrates the field, predictability will always remain at risk.

Conclusion: Predictability as the New Competitive Currency

Storytelling inspires. Compliance protects. But only predictability secures the future of food and ingredient companies.

For companies sourcing from Latin America — especially Brazil’s agricultural supply chains — the greatest risk today is not just regulation or price, but inconsistency. A contract is only as strong as the ability to deliver on it, season after season.

Predictability in sustainable sourcing from Brazil has become the new competitive currency. It builds client trust, stabilizes margins, and transforms sourcing from constant risk into market advantage.

But predictability doesn’t happen by chance. It requires a system: resilient production, reliable partnerships, transparent compliance, and market integration. Together, these pillars form the POS – Predictable Supply Operating System.

This blind spot is where many food and ingredient companies lose ground. Closing it is what turns fragile sourcing into reliable growth.

Leave a comment

FREE Assessment

If this resonates with you, I created a FREE Predictable Supply Assessment to help agri-food companies measure the resilience of their supply chains.

• Identify hidden risks

• Benchmark resilience across the five pillars

• Gain actionable feedback to secure predictability as a competitive edge

Start FREE assessment here

As executives in the food and agriculture industries, you understand the significance of compliance with the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) as it takes shape. While the regulation is not yet in place, preparing now can position your business to meet its requirements and thrive in the evolving marketplace. This article aims to address the key aspects of Brazilian soybean supply chains in the context of EUDR compliance Brazil, providing a roadmap for companies committed to sustainable sourcing from Brazil.

Current Landscape and Importance of EUDR Compliance

The EUDR aims to prevent the trading to European Union of commodities associated with deforestation and forest degradation, which impacts our sourcing integrity and market sustainability. Understanding and addressing the following key requirements is essential for Brazilian soybean supply chains and for companies seeking deforestation-free soy sourcing into Europe:

• Deforestation-Free Sourcing

• Traceability

• Due Diligence

• Geolocation Data

• Supply Chain Transparency

• Risk Assessment and Mitigation

• Independent Audits

• Documentation and Reporting

As we delve into this article, consider how your operations align with EUDR while assessing the current state of your value chain.

Share

Recommended Steps for EUDR Compliance

To develop a comprehensive EUDR compliance strategy, companies should consider these key steps:

1. Understand the EUDR Requirements: Familiarize yourself with the specifics of the regulation, including the scope of products covered and the obligations for proving that products are not linked to deforestation or forest degradation. Remember that the social component is also important to address like: to prove no relation to slave-like labour and FIPC (free and prior consent) in case of potential impact on traditional and local communities.

2. Conduct a Supply Chain Assessment: Map out your entire soybean supply chain transparency in Brazil, identifying all sources and their traceability and geolocation data to assess deforestation risks.

3. Engage with Suppliers: Communicate with your suppliers across Brazilian agriculture to ensure awareness of EUDR compliance Brazil requirements. This is critical for EU food and ingredient companies that depend on reliable supply from Brazil. It is important to understand the impact of the EUDR requirements on the supply chain demands, considering that some suppliers may not be able to sell soybean to your company due to EUDR restrictions.

4. Develop a Reporting and Monitoring System: Set up a system for ongoing monitoring of compliance to facilitate regular reviews and address any issues quickly.

Ongoing Compliance and Improvement Practices

To continuously monitor and improve compliance efforts as regulations evolve, companies can implement the following best practices:

• Establish a traceability and geolocation system for soybean sustainability in Brazil, integrating compliance documents.

• Conduct Regular Training and Capacity Building

• Implement Real-Time Monitoring Tools

• Continuous engagement with Stakeholders

• Develop a Feedback Loop

• Track Regulatory Changes and Update Policies

• Establish Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Subscribe now

Essential Documentation for Compliance

To demonstrate compliance with EUDR, companies should maintain a comprehensive set of documents, including:

• Environmental Rural Registry (CAR)

• Geolocation Data

• FPIC declarations (if applicable)

• Compliance with Labour Laws (mainly non slave-like work)

• Deforestation-free soy proof (supported by GIS analysis and integrated with due diligence soy sourcingdocumentation).

• Land Tenure Documentation

• Sustainability and Certification Certificates

• Due Diligence Reports

• Traceability Records

• Sustainability Practices Documentation

• Engagement and Communication Records

Resources for Support

For companies seeking guidance on achieving EUDR compliance, we and our network of EUDR and Soybean experts are more than happy to assist your company. In addition, consider the following associations and resources:

• Soybean Producers Association (Aprosoja)

• Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN)

• World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Brazil

• International Finance Corporation (IFC)

• Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH)

• Environmental Consultants

• Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA)

• Online Resources and Webinars

Engaging with these organizations and utilizing their resources can enhance your understanding and implementation of EUDR compliance in the context of Brazilian soy.

If you require further assistance to assess and to support your value chain strategic management against EUDR and other regulations, please feel free to contact us.

Together, we can create strategies that ensure sustainable sourcing Brazil, meet EUDR compliance Brazil, and transform reputation risk in sourcing into security of supply and market advantage.

Thank you for your commitment to sustainable sourcing practices.

Best regards,

Fabrício Peres, Strategic Advisor

Giovana Baggio, CEO Communita Advisors

Leave a comment

Building on Supply Chain Resilience: A Strategic ESG Approach

In my previous article, I discussed the critical importance of supply chain resilience, highlighting how food and agriculture companies must navigate complex risks stemming from environmental shifts, regulatory pressures, and geopolitical uncertainties. Building upon that foundation, this article explores how ESG integration—when strategically operationalized from field-level sourcing through to marketing—can further enhance supply chain resilience and provide a significant competitive edge.

The Emerging Importance of ESG and Sustainability in Food Supply Chains

The global food industry faces unprecedented pressures from consumers, regulators, and investors to adopt sustainable practices, driving the need for enhanced supply chain resilience and ESG integration. Sustainability has evolved from a peripheral concern to a central strategic imperative, significantly impacting how companies manage their sourcing practices and respond to disruptions. Companies across the food value chain are now evaluated not only on their products but also on their ability to maintain resilient and sustainable sourcing strategies. This shift represents both a profound challenge and a significant opportunity.

During my tenure at Syngenta, one of the world’s largest agri-businesses, integrating sustainability strategically across R&D, ESG initiatives, and marketing became essential for improving supply chain resilience. To move beyond compliance and genuinely differentiate in the marketplace, we recognized the need to operationalize sustainability in tangible, measurable ways that could directly enhance our supply chain resilience and strengthen our competitive advantage.

Common Barriers to Effective ESG Integration in Food Supply Chains

Despite good intentions, many organizations struggle to effectively integrate sustainability into core business functions. Too often, ESG initiatives are treated as standalone compliance or reporting exercises rather than being deeply embedded within strategic operations. Companies frequently fail to capture meaningful, actionable sustainability data from their sourcing practices or product development cycles. This results in weak, generic sustainability narratives that lack authenticity, fail to resonate with customers, and do little to build genuine brand differentiation.

At Syngenta, we faced these exact challenges. Our initial ESG efforts were disconnected from R&D and marketing. Sustainability claims were viewed skeptically by stakeholders, customers and even employees, who demanded concrete proof of action. We had data, but not in a format that connected directly to the commercial narrative or our brand’s value proposition.

Share

Turning Sustainability into Competitive Advantage: The Core Challenge

The core problem was clear: How do we transform sustainability from an abstract ideal into concrete, measurable business value that resonates authentically in the market? This problem had multiple dimensions:

• Defining specific sustainability outcomes linked directly to intrinsic characteristics of the product and its uses.

• Capturing precise, verifiable data at the field level that could substantiate these outcomes.

• Translating this data into tangible benefits, market-facing value propositions.

• Integrating these value propositions strategically into brand messaging, marketing, and customer engagement.

We realized that sustainability could only become a competitive advantage if it was systematically operationalized, from field-level through data measurement, value translation, and strategic brand activation.

Implementing ESG Strategically with the Field2Brand Operating System

The solution emerged through the creation and implementation of the Field2Brand Operating System, a structured framework designed explicitly to connect field-level sustainability data to strategic branding and marketing. Here’s how this process worked in detail at Syngenta and how it can be adapted effectively for companies sourcing agricultural products:

Step 1: Define Hypothesis

At Syngenta, we began by developing clear Sustainability Hypotheses. These hypotheses were actionable, testable statements about specific agronomic, environmental or social benefits we aimed to achieve through our products. For example, reducing water consumption or improving soil health through biological activities or innovative agronomic practices.

For food companies, this translates to defining sustainability goals aligned directly with sourcing practices, such as measurable reductions in carbon footprint, biodiversity improvements or enhanced farmer livelihoods.

Step 2: Capture Field Data

We established practical mechanisms to test and measure these hypothesis firstly in the lab, and then in real-world farming conditions. Data was collected systematically throughout product research and development. We measured different aspects from yield improvements and resource efficiency to ecological impacts, such as below and above ground biological activities and social outcomes, such as, for example, improved safety profile for farmers and consumers.

Food companies can similarly implement rigorous data capture systems within their supply chains, tracking environmental metrics, social outcomes and economic benefits at the farm level. Technologies like artificial intelligence, blockchain, remote sensing, farm management systems, precision agriculture and other digital platforms (software and hardware) not just facilitate the reliable collection and verification of such data, but also do that at scale.

Step 3: Translate to Value

Collected data were not left unused in technical documents. We deliberately translated these insights into clear, compelling, and market-relevant benefits. At Syngenta, there is a very robust and mature process for that, the 9-Steps of the branding process, but it deserves a special chapter to describe it. This sustainability data was integrated into this well-established process, so that it could be evaluated alongside all the other data points from development activities, such as product biology, product safety and regulatory data as a whole.

If a product demonstrated significant sustainability benefits such as water savings or productivity gains, these became explicit elements of our product messaging and consequently, marketing and sales strategies. In the food industry, translating data into value could mean linking improved sustainability metrics directly to product certifications, transparency reports, or consumer-facing claims such as “carbon-neutral sourcing” or “regenerative agriculture verified.”

Step 4: Activate in Brand

This following step integrated these translated sustainability benefits into Syngenta’s branding and marketing campaigns at customer level. Our messaging emphasized concrete, demonstrable outcomes rather than vague ESG statements, helping customers see tangible benefits clearly.

Food businesses adopting the Field2Brand OS can integrate similar data-driven narratives into their brands, using sustainability achievements to differentiate themselves from competitors. Proven impact enhances brand authenticity, fosters customer trust, and strengthens market positioning.

Conclusion: Strengthening Supply Chain Resilience Through Strategic ESG Integration

Today, companies in the food and agricultural sectors must move beyond mere ESG reporting to leverage sustainability as a strategic differentiator, significantly enhancing their supply chain resilience. The Field2Brand Operating System™ provides a structured, practical approach to achieving this—connecting sustainability practices from sourcing through to the end customer, thereby strengthening overall resilience and market positioning.

Ask yourself: Is your business merely reporting sustainability outcomes, or are you actively leveraging sustainability to drive differentiation, competitive advantage, and supply chain resilience? Remember, the key to sustainable advantage is not merely in telling ESG stories, but in strategically embedding sustainability from the field directly into your brand and your resilient supply chain.

Leave a comment

Introduction

Over the past five years, “supply chain resilience” has moved from operational jargon to a strategic priority for executive boards in the food, agri-inputs, and retail sectors. This shift is not driven by temporary disruptions but by a convergence of systemic risks that now threaten the stability of global food sourcing.

Climate volatility, agronomical challenges, geopolitical tensions, logistical gridlocks and regulatory fragmentation have collectively undermined the predictability of supply. At the same time, the bar for sustainability performance is rising, driven by investors, governments and increasingly conscious consumers.

The result: food companies are being forced to rethink how they source, how they operate, and how they future-proof their value chains.

This article provides a strategic roadmap to help decision-makers in the food supply chain to enhance resilience across their sourcing networks without compromising competitiveness or sustainability.

Situation and Complication

The global food system has been optimized over the last three decades for cost and efficiency. This optimization through lean inventory, single-source suppliers and long-distance logistics, mostly driven by cost, worked well in times of stability. But it created fragilities that are now exposed under pressure.

Six systemic threats now converge:
1. Climate shocks: Droughts, floods, and temperature extremes disrupting key production regions.
2. Agronomic degradation: Soil depletion and pest resistance reducing yield reliability.
3. Geopolitical instability: Wars and shifting alliances fragmenting trade routes.
4. Logistics disruption: Persistent port congestion and freight delays.
5. Trade and regulatory barriers: New compliance mandates or even radical nationalism disrupting flows.
6. Investor and buyer pressure: Increasing scrutiny on Scope 3 emissions, deforestation and ethics.

The cost of inaction is rising. Companies that delay adaptation face not only higher input costs and insecurity, but also reputational and legal exposure.

The Core Problem

How can companies in the food system ensure long-term security of supply while navigating volatility and accelerating sustainability demands?

This is not a logistics issue. It is a strategic question that touches procurement, farming systems, ESG reporting, brand equity and investor relations. The challenge is to build resilience with intention, balancing redundancy, agility and sustainability in a cost-conscious environment.

Share Beyond Harvest

Solution Framework: Four Strategic Levers for Resilience

I. Risk Diversification

1. Geographic and supplier diversification: Avoid over-reliance on single regions or vendors.
2. Multi-tier supplier visibility: Invest in systems that map and monitor Tier 2 and 3 suppliers.
3. Financial hedging and risk transfer: Use instruments to offset price and yield volatility.

II. Production Resilience

1. Regenerative agriculture and soil health: Adopt systems that improve yield stability whilst improving long term soil fertility.
2. Climate-smart crop management: Use digital (incl. AI) and biotech such as adaptive seed selection, for predictive and precision agriculture.
3. Localized infrastructure and support: Assess and engage with producers to collaboratively improve capacity and resilience.

III. System Efficiency & Resource Optimization

1. Upcycling and full-plant utilization: Create revenue streams from by-products, ex. coffee cascara, cocoa pulp and others.
2. Post-harvest loss reduction: Deploy technologies like crop protection to prevent losses and increase shelf life.
3. Circular logistics and inventory buffering: Build redundancy and reduce dependency.

IV. Intelligence & Governance

1. Early warning systems and predictive analytics: Anticipate disruptions with data.
2. Integrated ESG–risk reporting: Align sustainability with risk metrics and leverage new market segments.
3. Strategic partnerships and long-term contracts: Shift from transactional to relational supply networks, fostering stability.

Conclusion

In the past, sourcing was a cost center. Today, it is a board-level concern linked directly to business continuity, brand integrity and license to operate.

The companies that act early, integrating sustainability with risk, supply intelligence and market opportunities, will not only secure inputs but also secure advantage. They will be the ones shaping new standards, earning trust and commanding market premiums in a more complex, constrained world.

Now is the time to treat resilience not as a defensive measure, but as a platform for strategic growth.

Leave a comment

About the Author

Fabricio is a strategic advisor for food and agri-input companies sourcing from Latin America. With over 20 years of experience in agribusiness, sustainability, and international trade, he helps companies transform supply chain risk into trust, compliance and market advantage. Based in Switzerland and deeply connected to the agricultural realities of Brazil, he offers a pragmatic, forward-thinking view of sustainable sourcing.