Welcome to episode two of season ten of the Regenerative Skills podcast. As I mentioned last time, the show is changing this year: we’re moving to two episodes a month, and I’ll be alternating between two formats. The first is the panel conversations that have become a favorite over the last couple of years—three guests, three perspectives, one question that keeps surfacing inside the Climate Farmers community. The second format is what we’re launching today: Deep Dives. These are my attempt to bring complexity back into regenerative agriculture at a time when the online discourse is increasingly dominated by slogans, hot takes, and click-bait certainty. In these episodes we’ll weave narrative, investigative threads, and carefully chosen interview excerpts—not to land on a single “correct” stance, but to help you feel the texture of the problem and the tradeoffs behind each position.

Today’s Deep Dive is a question that provokes strong opinions for good reason: who gets to say what “regenerative” means? Rather than offering a definitive answer, I’m inviting you to sit with the motivations and incentives that shape any definition—whether it’s coming from farmers, certifiers, nonprofits, corporations, or measurement platforms. You’ll hear from Joao and Diogo of Monte Silveira in central Portugal—one of the first large farms in the country to achieve Regenerative Organic Certification—on why certification mattered to their market strategy without changing how they manage the land. You’ll hear from Ana Digon of the Iberian Regenerative Agriculture Association on how organic standards became diluted and why her network built a farmer-led, principle-based definition to protect integrity. We’ll bring in Benjamin Fahrer, who helped guide the ROC certification process and wrestles with who should have the authority to set standards, and we’ll close with Phil Fernandez, who led Climate Farmers’ MRV work and explains why definitions become unavoidable once monitoring, reporting, and compliance enter the picture. Along the way I’ll name the many other perspectives shaping this debate online—from soil-health purists and carbon-first programs to agroecology, corporate “regen” initiatives, and the often-overlooked critique of appropriation from Indigenous and peasant traditions—and we’ll end by pointing to the deeper issue behind the whole mess: the loss of relationship and trust in our food systems. Next month we go practical: measuring regeneration—what’s worth tracking, what gets distorted, and how we stay grounded when dashboards start pretending to be truth.