Resources

• Agreena
  Regenerative agriculture platform supporting farmers with data, benchmarking, carbon finance, and transition incentives across Europe.
• Verra – VM0042 Improved Agricultural Land Management (Soil Carbon)
  Outcome-based soil carbon methodology referenced in the discussion for crediting regenerative practices.
• Sentinel-2 (European Space Agency)
  Satellite imagery source commonly used for monitoring vegetation, crop cover, and land-use change in digital MRV systems.
• Copernicus Programme
  EU Earth observation program providing open-access satellite data widely used in agricultural and climate monitoring.
• Machine Learning for Earth Observation (ESA)
  Referenced implicitly in the discussion around modeling soil carbon and land-use outcomes at scale.
• FAO – Soil Organic Carbon Mapping
  Global dataset often used as a baseline for soil carbon modeling and benchmarking.
• European Commission – Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
  Policy context referenced when discussing incentives, subsidies, and farmer decision-making in Europe.
• Regenerative Agriculture Alliance
  Industry and research network referenced conceptually in discussions of farmer communities and best practices.

Host and Guest

Host: Mike Toffel, Professor, Harvard Business School (LinkedIn)

Guest: Simon Haldrup, Founder & CEO, Agreena (LinkedIn)

Transcript

Editor's Note: The following was prepared by a machine algorithm, and may not perfectly reflect the audio file of the interview.

Mike Toffel:

Simon, thank you so much for joining us here on Climate Rising. Let's start with a brief introduction to you and to Agreena.

Simon Haldrup:

Yes, so I think I'm the least interesting part of the equation, which is myself. I have a strange career, having started in robotics and early dot-com entrepreneurship back in the 90s and 2000s, and then I spent almost 15 years in financial services. So, my personal story is that I think there comes a point where a midlife crisis sets in, and I want to do something that really has an impact, both felt and seen. And that led me down the stretch of regenerative agriculture, because I think it represents one of the largest untapped potentials and levers out there.

It is a very scalable solution. So that's my background, and Agreena is really the story of trying to build infrastructure for scale within regenerative agriculture. And we do that to try to build a more resilient and low-impact food ecosystem.

We help farmers to find a more sustainable way of producing. And we do that with tools, technology, and also payments to help finance it. But I'm sure we'll dig much more into that.

Mike Toffel:

Absolutely, absolutely. So, before we dig into the Agreena business model and how you work with farmers and buyers, let's just focus a little bit on the definition of Regena. In the prior conversations that we've had on the podcast with other companies engaging in this topic, they've primarily focused on two practices. They focused on no-till or low-till, which is to say not stirring up the soil after every crop season.

Mike Toffel:

And also, they've talked about cover crops, which is planting crops in between the cash crop cycles in order to retain moisture, to prevent soil erosion, and have some benefits in that manner, maintaining the structure of the soil. Now, those are two foundational practices. think pretty much everyone agrees. Those are in the mix. But you guys talk about a few other practices as well. And I wonder if you could just help unpack the definition that you guys use.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, absolutely. I think we, in general, think of regenerative as a toolbox, not as a label. And within that toolbox, we cover a range of different practices. Low or no till is one of them, and cover crops are another. And cover crops are not just cover crops. are deep-rooted cover crops, and there are low-rooted cover crops. So, it's a variance within the definition.

We also focus quite a lot on reducing synthetic fertilizers as they are a significant part of both the ecosystem and the GHG footprint, and keeping the soil covered throughout the year, improving the crop rotation, but also leaving organic residue in the field after harvest. So, it's a range of different practices, and those are the ones we cover at this point. Those are the tools in the toolbox, if you will. But I actually think it is interesting if you study some of those regenerative farming families who have been doing regenerative farming for the longest, they're still implementing new practices. You could also take the position of saying, when focusing on a few practices, that's the rookie, that's the starting point. But actually, for the long-term regenerative farming activities, they're still implementing and coming up with new practices. So, it's an ongoing solution.

Mike Toffel:

I see. So, what are some of the more advanced families that have been doing this for a longer period of time? What are some of the tools in their toolboxes? I could imagine, for example, ever more refinements in the blends of cover crops to use, for example. But maybe there are other dimensions entirely they're thinking of.

Simon Haldrup:

Absolutely. It's cover crops, it's catch crops, and cover crops. It's intercropping. So different crop species are mixed. But I think it's also in the crossing between organic and regenerative that we see a bunch of practices coming together. And I don't want to dedicate myself as an expert in the field by any standard, but I think it's an interesting observation that even for those who have been doing this for decades, they're still implementing some of those new practices. And then I think it's very important to reflect that for each farmer, for each field, there's not a one size fits all. The right formula very, very much depends on the farmer, the cropping history, the soil type, the weather, the climate, and therefore it has to be seen as a toolbox to draw from.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah, interesting. So, I know that Agreena defines itself as being very farmer-centric. And so, help unpack what that means for us. What's the journey that you engage with, farmers? So, you're convinced there's a huge opportunity. There are reports out there that talk about Regen Ag adding to the profitability of farms. Yet a tiny fraction of farmland is engaging in Regen practices. I know your mission is to dramatically scale that up, and we're going to talk about that. But just on a one-to-one relationship with farmers, do you find them? Do they find you? What do those initial conversations look like? And then what's the onboarding process as you start engaging with?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, absolutely. So, unpacking it, we think of ourselves as farmer-centric for a very simple reason, which is that that is the origin of change. So, we need to design an ecosystem around the farmer because that is where the change needs to happen. It can't be the other way around. So that's the very simple notion for the farmer-centricity.

And I think how we do that, very much, know, things start with the farmer. So, when we work with the farmer, they come to the platform; you know, some farmers find us. Farming is a community sport. So, in many ways, when we work with some farmers in a community, that tends to spread.

Sometimes, for the farmers we find them, but no matter where the conversation starts, first and foremost, it never starts with regenerative. It starts with good farming practice. It starts with a focus on long-term productivity, profitability, using fewer inputs, and gaining less volatility in the outputs. It's a conversation around a better operating system for the farm.

And because I think it's that, that's at least how we think about it, that, you know, farmers are businessmen, farmers are operators, they are stewards of the land. But they are also businessmen. And therefore, actually taking this to a business language rather than a natural language, regenerative as a term can actually be highly divisive. It can sound a little too extreme for some. Therefore, the conversation is very much about improving good farming practices into a better operating system.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah, there's an interesting split reputation that I've heard as I've been talking to people about the ag sector and farmers, where some view farmers as a bit change-averse and more likely to rely on intergenerational knowledge that's been passed down from their parents and their grandparents, many multi-generational farmers. But on the other hand, people recognize that they're constantly looking for new inputs, new machinery, new seed blends, new fertilizers in order to increase yields in particular. And so, there's an interesting conundrum about, like, well, are they Luddites on the one hand or are they leaning into innovation on the other? And here you are, a new organization, talking to many farmers who've been around intergenerationally. How do you convince them that you have new things to teach them that they haven't been able to learn through their community?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, I think so first and foremost, just to respond to the notion of change-averse or change-prone. I think first and foremost, it's quite important to recognize that a farmer is not a farmer. know, farmer is at least as broad a spectrum as so many other categories. We work across 20 different countries and know that farmers in Ukraine, which is one of our big markets, has a tend to have a very different mindset than farmers in Spain or in the UK, for example. So, there are cultural differences. It's also a huge difference whether it's a small family farm or it's a corporate, half-industrial farm. So, size matters in the mindset. So, there are many different variance drivers in how farmers think about change.

Personally, when I look across a pattern, I would definitely tag farmers as super change-friendly and change-prone. They continuously optimize because they're working in an externality that is changing all the time, the weather is changing all the time, other factors are changing all the time, and regulatory constraints change all the time. So, they must adjust their operation. All the time, just keep their business profitable.

That being said, I think that it's important to recognize that there are some fundamentals in farming that have been passed through generations that are deeply rooted in most cultures. And one of them is the use of a plow. The use of a plow is so fundamental in a lot of farmers' thinking about how they farm that the idea of not plowing, for example, is super difficult. And then secondly, regenerative. If you put on a picture of what a regenerative field looks like versus a conventional one, it looks different. So, the whole notion in a community about what good looks like is very different, and therefore, I think those deep factors are much more difficult to change with most farmers.

Mike Toffel:

Just give us a picture in your mind about what the difference looks like between a regen farm and a non-regen farm.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, so if you drive around the countryside and look at a conventionally operated field, looks slick. Looks nice. It looks neat. The definition of neatness is quite anchored with a lot of farmers. And here I'm talking mainly about arable row crop production farmers. Whereas if you look at a regenerative run farm, then you leave organic material. You have cover crops lying there.

The whole idea of neatness and, therefore, the judgment neighbors and the communities judge you on looks very different. And it's a very different dimension of change than optimizing your seed mix.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah, very interesting. Now, a moment ago, you said that the size of the farm, whether it's an individual farmer or a corporate farmer, in terms of their change-prone or risk aversion. In which direction does that go? Because I can imagine it going in either direction. Are larger farms more risk-prone or are they more conservative?

Simon Haldrup:

I would say, and again speaking on the portfolio we're operating, I would generally tend to say that larger farmers are more prone to transition for some reasons. One is that they tend to be more data-driven. Whereas a smaller farm tends to operate season on season, a larger farm collects data, optimizes data, and tends to have a bit longer planning.

And therefore, they're more prone to take on those kinds of structural changes as a transition to regenerative.

Mike Toffel:

So, let's give us a picture of a particular engagement that you've had with an interested farmer, and you had some conversations. They saw both upsides and downsides, and how do you navigate that conversation?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, absolutely. I can generalize it quite easily. But most often, all conversation starts from a pressure point. And those pressure points vary. In Spain, where we operate, the pressure points for most farmers, in Romania, let's take a different country, more or less the same, are drought.

So, the pressure point is that they have problems retaining moisture in the soil, and therefore, they have a fundamental interest in regenerative agriculture because that is a solution model for that. Another pressure point can be reduced output prices, increased input prices, it's profitability problem. But there's always a pressure point, and we're quite focused on that because we want to work with farmers who inherently have an interest in transitioning to regenerative. Because regenerative is not a six-sack motion. It has to be continuous over a period of time. So, when we work with a farmer, the farmer can be onboarded on the platform directly. He can do it in anything between five and 30 minutes. He finds his farm; he can click his feed.

We can download the data, and we can get him up and profile his farm. He can benchmark how he's doing compared to others. He can get quite deep insight into both opportunities and the status quo on his farm when comparing and starting to think about scenarios for change. When we engage in the conversation, it's then very much about it needs to start from a will to change. And then we help him understand different scenarios, different opportunities, and what logic is.

To relate to something you said earlier, how do you, as a young company with a focus on technology, and I'm an ex-banker, how do you convince farmers? And I think one very important point is I don't think I've ever convinced a farmer of anything because I think most farmers can smell a mile away that I'm not a farmer myself. Our model is very important because we leverage both the communities of farmers talking to other farmers. But we also have in the company, we have quite a few people who either grew up on a farm or are farmers themselves on the side. Because I think actually that is where most of that's the most trustworthy level of conversation is, instead of a technology guy or an ex-banker trying to explain to a farmer how he should do his fundamental craftsmanship differently. It has to come from other farmers. That's where the trust relationship is.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah, so how did your organization accumulate this knowledge in ways above and beyond what farmers can learn from each other in their communities? Because, as I understand it, farmers often share what's new and maybe their challenges and different practices at the town square or the diner, as it were. And yet you're saying we actually have additional tools and tips and guidance that we think can exceed what you can get essentially for free in your community.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, the good thing is they get it for free with us as well. But to answer your question specifically, that's where technology kicks in. I think I alluded to with the large farmers, one of the reasons why they're more change prone is that they typically invest quite a lot in capturing data on the operation, running a very strict data understanding and analytics to optimize their operation.

And most farmers don't have that; they might record some data for reporting purposes, but they don't feed it back into an optimization process. And I think with the technology we built, we're able to both profile the individual farm, but we actually profile and capture data on millions and millions and millions of hectares. And therefore, we can create comparability. So I can basically look up and say, another farmer that has the same crop, the same soil, the same as me, what are they doing and you know both in terms of practices but also outcomes right so I can link over time those practices to outcomes to try to benchmark and compare so I think there's a difference between a a practice or a narrative or maybe a story to something consistent they can they can plan the operation around.

Mike Toffel:

Yep, got it. That makes a lot of sense. Now we've been talking largely about the benefits so far, right? The soil erosion, water retention, less fertilizer use, et cetera. What are the risks, concerns, or costs that are on farmers' minds? Why isn't everyone jumping in? It can't all be so money lying on the fields just waiting to get picked up. What are the risks or perceived risks?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, think actually, I think the most important starting point is, narrow margins and short planning horizon. So, you know, the benefits in the Region Act are not a first-year benefit. It's a mid to long-term benefit. So, actually, the fundamental barrier is the discrepancy between a one-year planning horizon logic and a mid to long-term outcome logic.

That's actually the starting point for the hesitation. And then it's thin margins. You know what you have, but what would it actually give me in the mid to long term? The thinner the margins, the less appetite for risk for obvious reasons. think beyond that, I think there are two main barriers to be aware of. One is the knowledge barrier.

We're trying to overcome is to actually provide the knowledge and the specificity on how to do it. But it is as important to understand at least the perceived productivity dip in the first year or two. So, one of the things that some farmers who have tried regenerative farming report back is that they see a yield drop in the first or second year. And that can be because the soil is adjusting to a new normal. It can be due to the weather situation; it can be due to a number of different factors.

If I'm a farmer and I think about my next year and I have a thin margin, I know there's a benefit in three to four years, but I at least have a perception of productivity and therefore a profitability risk in the first year, that is what keeps a lot of farmers from starting that adoption.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. Now, in other markets that face that problem, loans are the obvious solution. So, think about, at least in the U.S., for education, if people are working for a few years but then decide they want to go back to school, either full-time or part-time, their revenues will take a dip, their expenses will go up, but with the idea that in the long term, it can pay off hugely. But how do they accommodate themselves in the interim? They often take out.

Mike Toffel:

Loans in the U.S., maybe 10-year loans, for example. So, is that not the same solution here on farms? Or are we going back to risk aversion? Are farmers reluctant to take out loans for this time of bridging period? Or are they not able to get such loans?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah. So, it's a great point, and as an ex-banker, I very much allude to that. I think there are a few factors. One is that a lot of farmers are highly leveraged.

You know, you have very high land prices, and therefore they are highly leveraged, and therefore taking out an operating loan to mitigate that transition cost, right? It's not necessarily first on their priority list. And second, but I think the other factor is that I don't think the financial industry has actually fully developed that product package yet. You know, MBA students have been going back to school for a long time. Regenerative is a new kid on the block. And I think we're only now starting to see a industry conclusion on some of the data because it's quite predictable how long going back to school for an MBA takes. It's much more because of the variance of farming; it's much more unpredictable exactly what that dip is going to look like, and so on. So, I think the industry is short on data to develop that product suite. But I think it's starting to come through. We started to pass a partner as an example with different banks, exactly to do that. I think financial products are one of the levers both for absorbing that transition risk, but also for green financing, and for equipment financing, and others that relate to this.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. So, we've been talking about the farmer journey, partly because the green had defined itself as farmer-centric. But the way I view Agreena is, in a sense, a two-sided platform where you have farmers on the one hand, and you have buyers of their products or of carbon credits on the other hand. So, tell us a little bit about the platform and the two-sided market. And a moment ago, you said you give all this input, advice, and information to farmers for free. Tell us a little bit also about how you make money as a for-profit organization?

Simon Haldrup:

Absolutely. And just again with the farmer-centric logic, why do we give services to farmers for free? It's because we just talked about the most difficult thing is to mobilize the farmers. So, if we started to put a barrier, a payment wall, at the very first step, that would just be yet another barrier to overcome. And that is really the logic. So, it's an indirect business model. So, how it works really is that the farmer uses the platform he plans. Over the course of the farming year, we gather all the data on the ground from satellite images and a lot of AIS in between to really be able to capture data from the farmer and indirectly on exactly what happens on the fields. That way, we're to verify, certify, and create carbon assets. Some are credits that are outside the supply chain, and some are inputs within the supply chain. And it's really to help corporates both decarbonize their supply chain and outside it to meet their commitments. And that is a business model that generates cash that we then take a rate on, or we do a share of value with the farmer, and that means that we are perfectly aligned with the incentive of the farmer, and so we only generate a cash flow when the farmer generates a cash flow from our services.

Mike Toffel:

And this is through the carbon credit channel that we're talking about.

Simon Haldrup:

That is through the carbon credit and carbon assets as a broader category.

Mike Toffel:

I see. What did carbon assets include beyond carbon credits?

Simon Haldrup:

Because it's a little bit of its maybe a taxonomy specificity but carbon credits that's for offsetting that is outside the supply chain of the agricultural food system if I am to decarbonize if I'm a CPG in the in the supply chain I want to decarbonize my product then carbon credits is not the right instrument Therefore those are those that's more data and its carbon inserts that's being used for that So it's a little bit of a specificity but carbon. My practice generally is the instrument for offsetting outside the supply chain.

Mike Toffel:

So, for insets, it might be that you're providing evidence that if a CPG is trying to procure a row crop that's less carbon-intensive, engaging with you and the verification process provides that evidence. And so that maybe is either the farmer will yield a price premium, or they'll just get a contract, but it doesn't go through the formal carbon credit issuance process. Is that right?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, I appreciate that. It's much better laid out than I did. And you're absolutely right. Apart from it goes through the same level of scrutiny process just in a parallel channel. So, it's just a different type of certification than the certification you run through to offset. And I think that's quiet, it's complex yet important because if you think about the carbon outcome here, it's great.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah. Got it.

Simon Haldrup:

that we can package that and sell it into an offtake on that. But similarly, we need to be able to create carbon outcomes for the supply chains because we can't just sell it all outside the supply chain. So, the interoperability between these product lines is important. And we think about it very much as an almost as an investment bank, right? We have a stack of value. What happens on the field happens on the field. And we verify that outcome. And then we slice and dice those, and some go outside the supply chain; something goes inside the supply chain. Our goal is to optimize the value to create the highest financing effect for the farm.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. And so far, you've issued with your farmers about 2 million credits or so, as I understand it, off of about 1.6 million hectares, which is around 5.7 acres. So, my math, this is just coming from your website, so my math of this gets to about 1.4 tons per hectare or 0.4 tons per acre so far. Are those numbers, do you think?

Mike Toffel:

Early numbers, will they get even bigger? Or is that like the right number to look forward to, and then the way to scale is more, it's just more acreage or more.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, I think it's a great question. The honest answer is I don't know because that really depends on what the next scaling phase of regenerative agriculture looks like across the agricultural industry. I would say on the one hand, those numbers will go up because of both data and models.

The uncertainty in verification will reduce overtime with better technology and better data. One, two is that farmers will implement more soil practices. So, they will naturally migrate upwards in the use of the toolbox, which would count for more and more assets per acre or per hectare. On the other hand, I think that the portfolio this represents is farmers who have been quite focused on, you know, quite an intensive transition. Whereas I think for smaller farmers, they tend to start with fewer practices from the get-go, and therefore, they will probably start having a lower starting point. But the potential is in that ballpark.

Mike Toffel:

I see it is very interesting. Now this was enhanced somewhat recently by having this process go through an accepted verification. I can't remember the name of it, but sorry, let me try that again. So, this process of trying to get carbon credits issued in a recognizable way took somewhat of a leap forward, I believe it was in 2025, when Vera issued a methodology that recognized this whole approach. And so, one can hire consultants to check against that methodology. These are the VBBs, the validation and verification bodies, to do, I'm going to give another acronym here, the MRV, the measurement reporting and verification process, all against this standard that Verra created. And I just want to take a moment to think back on that standard, or this methodology, as they call it.

Earlier on, we talked about the difficulty of actually defining what regenerative agriculture means. So, where did the standard and or the methodology come out in terms of practices versus outcomes, that discussion we were having earlier?

Simon Haldrup:

Absolutely. So, the short answer is that it’s an outcome methodology. And it's for each project to define the boundaries within which practices are involved and be able to document and evidence the linkage between the practices and the outcomes, and then continuously be able to verify that. So, the standards are set very much, and the methodology sets the high-level boundary.

Simon Haldrup:

And it is new because the soil category and region category are new categories on the block; it's the new kid on the block.

And it's a super difficult category because, you know, if you compare it to forestry, right, then you plant some trees and you must monitor over a period that those trees are growing as expected, and so on. Here, you can't just come back five years later and look because you'll have had five different cropping seasons, at least in the meantime. So, you need a much more continuous process of verification and data capture.

And I think that's also maybe the link to why technology is so important in the mix here. We talked a lot about farmers as a propensity for scale, but I think, you know, none of these works without technology, both to provide the information and the conviction to the farmer, but as important to provide the integrity of verification to make this commercially viable.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah, so let's just dig into that a little bit because if one imagines that some consultant needs to come on the farm and sample soil and then send it to the lab to figure out how much carbon is actually in the soil, that's a clearly very expensive approach and would tip the scales much more toward large farms being able to afford those costs than to small farms. But you mentioned earlier, and I've read a bit on your website about remote sensing and machine learning and so on, trying to do this remotely. And I think that's all part of the process that's allowable under the Varis standard. So, tell us a little bit about how that works and how confident one should be as to the measurements coming from, whether it's drones or satellites, to get a sense of how much carbon is in the soil.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, absolutely. Look, you're right in the fundamentals. If we were to do soil samples on every field every year, this would never be meaningful and at scale. So, the short answer is to model it. And therefore, we deployed what's called a measure and model approach. So, we create a lot of statistically deterministic reference plots that we're continuously sampling. We are sampling in different soils, in different climatic zones, in different crops. So, simply put, if I put a cover crop and reduce tillage in this type of soil, what is the soil effect, and measure it? We've done a lot of soil samples and are continuing to do so, which means that we can actually have a robust model. And therefore, we don't have to go and sample on every field and on every farm, which then links to the digital MRV. So, by being able to have a very robust verification of which practices have been used on this exact field, then we can create a very robust prediction of the carbon outcome that was generated from that.

Mike Toffel:

So, there are both machine learning algorithms going on here where you're training these algorithms based on actual soil samples and then you're doing a prediction of soil carbon, and you're combining this with remote sensing.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, so remote sensing is a part of that because we need to know which practices were used. To give a very concrete example, we talked about no till and low till earlier, but it comes down to being able to see whether the farmer has gone down to 5 cm in the soil or 15 cm or below 25 cm. And that's the challenge, right? And we've built models that, with commodity satellite imagery, we can actually discern that difference on a field and be able to see from the sky which depth the farmer has disturbed the soil to. And that we can then feed into the models.

Mike Toffel:

Interesting. So, I had imagined that the remote sensing was going to somehow use its imagery or technology to figure out the actual carbon content in the soil, but that's not what you're doing. You're using it; that would be the Y in the equation. You're using it for some of the XX’s, like what are the practices? And then you're using the trained model to say, okay, with these practices, we get this much carbon, and that's based on the measurement process.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah. That's exactly right. So, it's a two-step approach. And the remote sensing, because not only did we have to send a person to each field every year, but we also actually had to send a person to a field multiple times a year, because different practices happened at different times of the year. And obviously, that has no economic relevance to doing that. So, both for integrity, but also just for fundamental economic validity, technology is absolutely key.

Mike Toffel:

Now, you mentioned you're engaged in row crops. Which crops and which countries are your leading angle with?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, we actually started with five, to my knowledge, we are supporting approximately 15 crops at this point. Now that also is because you have spring barley and winter barley. So, there are different permutations offered, and we operate in 20 countries. So, know, popularly put, operate from Ukraine to the UK in Europe. And, you know, we have around 10,000 farmers on the platform at this point in time.

Mike Toffel:

And you're doing barley wheat, things like that.

Simon Haldrup:

Barley, wheat, and sunflowers are all the main categories of row cropping. don't do, you know, we don't do... One of the main challenges is some of those crops that inherently disturb the soil, like beets, for example. So, there we're still having some work to do, but our focus has been on covering that. We basically need to cover the rotation. It doesn't make sense that we cover, you know, two out of the crops because then we can only service the farmer two out of three years. So, we're trying to, and that has been our focus, to cover the entire rotation.

Mike Toffel:

And when you're pointing out beets, I think what you're saying there is that those crops grow under the soil rather than above the soil.

Simon Haldrup:

That's exactly right. That's exactly right, and there are, we touched upon earlier, kind of, you know, there's a lot of innovation in the field. So, we're also starting to see practices that allow, you know, with precision farming that can, where you can grow beets because a lot of the disturbance comes in the harvesting of the beets, where you can precision farm the beets and therefore do much less soil disturbance. So, it's a continuous learning process.

Mike Toffel:

Really very interesting. So, let's talk about going forward. So, where do you see with your mission of scale, where do you see the biggest unlock potential being to scale up regenerative ag?

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah. I think it's many things coming together. Don't think it's one thing. I think in many ways, when we started this journey, even though we're a young company, it feels like half a lifetime. Like five, seven years ago, when I talked to politicians, farmers, the industry, and talked about regenerative ag, people thought it was a cult. So, I think it's fascinating that we sit here and talk about regenerative ag. And actually, I think it's in that it's becoming mainstream, and it's becoming the word on the street, and it ripples out into rural areas and to farmers as well. One. Two is, think, and that is something we've seen happening very much, which I mentioned earlier, farming is a community sport. So, we focus a lot on some large farmers, and when they're implementing it ripples through the local community. So those are part of it.

Outside of that, I would say it's policy. Policy is important. A little bit up and down, we see a lot of policies developing in this space in the EU, for example. is support systems around it. It's the food and ag sector coming together around this.

Its carbon markets are being liquid and deep enough to help finance it. So, there are a lot of things that must come together. But I think they all, and I don't say that just with Agreena’s lens, it's all predicated around technology scaling rails. Because without data and without technology, this just doesn't come together. So, I think what gives me a lot of hope is that.

As I alluded to just five years back, this was a very different conversation. So, I hope and expect in five years that we don't talk about regenerative as a niche, but as a new normal. And I think technology has come so far that it can support it. So now it's more the business ecosystem around that must scale.

Mike Toffel:

So, my final question is about career opportunities in this space. So, for those who are interested in learning more about Areena and the markets that you're engaging in, if they want to learn how I might get involved in Regena, I'm not an agronomist and not trained in it. In agriculture, but maybe you have a banking background like yourself. Where would you send them? What resources would you encourage them to pursue? Conferences, companies to look up, newsletters to subscribe to, and podcasts to listen to.

Simon Haldrup:

Yeah, all of the above. So, I think there are a lot of resources out there to learn about the region. I don't think anyone is educated in regional ag. And you can also take the approach that most changes happen from outside signals to an industry. And therefore, I wouldn't at all see it as a disadvantage not being trained as an agronomist or a necessary guru on a farm. I think there are plenty of learning resources available.

I think there are a few key logics I would apply. One is that this is not a closed-loop recipe, and therefore, you know, if wanting to look into this space, I think it's very important to take a pioneering mindset. Things change all the time. We talked about toolboxes or recipes, know, regulation is evolving, standards are evolving. There's a lot of ambiguity.

Managing ambiguity is a very important quality that I would highly advise when hiring for our company. I think data technology, I'm super excited about what technology can do to help transition and redefine how we do agriculture and actually adapt to the climate changes that we're seeing. know, agriculture is at the forefront of that impact. And that means as much as we're mitigating, we have to adapt. And I think, you know, everyone who works with technology with a purpose can engage there. And then I think it's a lot about systems thinking. It's not one thing. It's not, you know, it's not like doing a model or doing it's actually building systems together, so system thinking, which I think is trained on most MBA courses, is quite an important approach to take into it.

Mike Toffel:

Great. Well, Simon, it's been a wonderful conversation, and I really appreciate you spending time with us here on Climate Rising.

Simon Haldrup:

Thanks a lot for having me. It's been a pleasure.