“EU has fallen behind on regenerative agriculture. But Soil Law is a great opportunity”

Mission Soil ambassador Matteo Mazzola will speak at Ecomondo’s States General for soil health: “We must support regeneration in opposition to agronomic simplification. On agroecology, Asia and America are doing more, but European rules can accelerate the spread of best practices”

by Matteo Cavallito

“The best part of this job, perhaps, is helping to raise public awareness on soil issues. Then comes the technical issues on promoting best practices, of course, which is a permanent opportunity for discussion among producers, researchers, testers, educators, and consultants.” So says Matteo Mazzola, co-founder of Iside Farm, the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA), and the Microfarm Italia Agroecological Network, while describing his role as Ambassador for the EU’s Mission Soil.

Mr. Mazzola, who is involved in many other activities—agroecologist, educator, and consultant— will be one of the speakers at the fourth edition of the States General for Soil Health on November 6. The incoming event, part of the agenda of the Ecomondo exhibition, will be a precious opportunity to discuss many issues. Including the most recent news.

Mr. Mazzola, right now the European Parliament has finally approved the Soil Law. What’s your assessment?

From my perspective and experience, I’m pretty critical of how slow institutions have been over the years to recognize the importance of regenerative agriculture in agroecology and ecology. There’s no doubt that these validations always come too late. That said…

It’s a good start.

Yes, the Soil Law opens up many opportunities. Especially if we can start to raise awareness of the issue and provide support, including financial support, for projects. From this point of view, we are certainly seeing the first positive signs.

European documents on soil are increasingly mentioning regenerative agriculture. What do you think is the key strength of this approach?

First of all, there is still no comprehensive and accepted definition of regenerative agriculture. Today we can define it as an approach designed to grow high-quality food in sufficient volume while providing ecosystem services that benefit humanity and all other species. While also generating social benefits.

How widespread is knowledge and application of this approach in Europe?

It is generally spreading, but with many differences between different countries. In Europe, for example, Spain is doing well in livestock farming, while Italy remains more tied to conventional practices even if attention to soil importance is growing there too.

And globally? Can Europe be considered a leader?

So far, certainly not. In Asia, for example, a very strong traditional agroecological approach is much more widepsread. In America, several best practices have been widely used for decades. From this point of view, Europe is still lagging far behind, but it also has one important asset: a regulatory framework that could speed up the spread of these practices.

Speaking of best practices in agriculture, are there any of those you have been particularly impressed by over the years?

I can say from my own experience that the most significant improvements in agroecology are achieved through verticalization, i.e., the combination of elements and practices that are conventionally kept separate. Agroforestry, for example, can be integrated with different crops, grazing, and pasture production, generating benefits for animals, soil and the ecosystem in general.

And more specifically?

Regarding the increase in organic matter, I would say the use of cover crops, soil amendments such as biochar and rock dust. But there’s more. Regenerative agriculture is like an almost infinite toolbox, and no one practice is better than another: it all depends on the crop, the scenario, the farmer, the latitude, the climate… in short, on many factors.

Is a global transition from intensive to regenerative agriculture possible in the medium to long term? Is this transition consistent with food security?

In terms of numbers, the regenerative approach is not yet sufficiently established to replace the intensive approach. That said, we must understand that we cannot look only at “quantity per hectare” without taking environmental costs into account. And let’s not forget that the extension of best practices – as several studies now show – allows us to produce as much, if not more.

In short, relying on regenerative agriculture does not mean giving up productivity, technology, and everything else. Is that what you mean?

Of course. In doing regenerative agriculture today, we use satellite technology, drones, and advanced tools that can help us collect and validate data. We are not talking about the old idea of minimal agriculture that would claim to “use nothing” to produce.

In conclusion, then, what are we talking about?

We are talking about ‘complex’ agriculture, in contrast to the simplification of agronomic and zootechnical practices. In short, an agriculture that can integrate different practices to achieve its goals: sequestering carbon, using water efficiently, increasing the nutritional content of crops and functional biodiversity. And, of course, improving people’s quality of life.