Please Signup
I accept all terms and conditions
I accept all terms and conditions
Regenerative agriculture offers a promising pathway toward more resilient and sustainable agrifood systems in Southeast Asia, but its success depends on context-specific implementation, strong evidence, and enabling policies rather than the adoption of prescribed practices alone.
AFNR Knowledge Platform
SEARCA
Published
29/08/2026
Southeast Asia’s agrifood systems are under increasing pressure from soil degradation, biodiversity loss, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. These pressures have intensified interest in farming approaches that seek to restore soil health and ecosystem functions while sustaining long-term food production. Regenerative agriculture is one such approach, but the term has no universally accepted legal, regulatory, or common definition. Scientific reviews show that it is variously defined through farming processes, intended outcomes, or a combination of both (Newton et al. 2020; Schreefel et al. 2020; Teng and Ludher 2026).
For this brief, regenerative agriculture is treated as a context-dependent approach to farming that uses soil conservation and restoration as an entry point and seeks measurable improvements in soil health, biodiversity, ecosystem functions, climate resilience, and the environmental, social, and economic sustainability of food production. This working description does not imply that every practice labeled regenerative will necessarily produce these outcomes (Newton et al. 2020; Schreefel et al. 2020; Teng and Ludher 2026).
Drawing primarily on Teng and Ludher’s (2026) Regenerative Agriculture for Climate Resilience and Food Security in Southeast Asia, together with scientific reviews, regional soil evidence, and ASEAN policy documents, this knowledge brief examines four developments: growing policy attention; the need for context-specific practice; the strength and limits of the evidence; and the enabling conditions required for adoption. Because regenerative agriculture is fundamentally a land-based farming concept, the brief focuses on agriculture and natural resource management within Southeast Asia’s broader agriculture, forestry, and natural resources (AFNR) agenda rather than treating it as an approach to fisheries.
Regenerative agriculture is increasingly being discussed within broader efforts to build agrifood systems that are more resilient, sustainable, and climate-responsive. In this framing, soil health and ecosystem functions are not separate environmental concerns; they are part of the productive base on which long-term agricultural performance depends (Schreefel et al. 2020; Teng and Ludher 2026).
This direction is visible in recent regional frameworks. The ASEAN Food, Agriculture and Forestry Sectoral Plan (FAF-SP) 2026–2030 includes sustainable and regenerative measures among its strategic priorities, together with climate resilience, food security and nutrition, market connectivity, digital innovation, and sustainable forest management. The ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Strategy on Food, Agriculture and Forestry (APTCS-FAF) 2026–2035 likewise prioritizes climate-smart agriculture, nature-based solutions, sustainable natural resource management, digital transformation, and regional cooperation (ASEAN Secretariat 2025; ASEAN 2025).
These documents establish policy direction, not evidence of widespread adoption or impact. The practical test is whether regional commitments are translated into defined national approaches, funded programs, extension and advisory support, financing, farmer participation, and measurable outcomes (ASEAN Secretariat 2025; ASEAN 2025; Teng and Ludher 2026).
Key Question
Are countries translating regional commitments on regenerative agriculture into clearly defined, adequately funded, and measurable national programs?
Regenerative agriculture should not be presented as a fixed package of technologies. Newton et al. (2020) found that scholarly and practitioner definitions may be process-based, outcome-based, or combine both. Process-based definitions typically identify practices, while outcome-based definitions emphasize intended environmental, social, or economic results. The authors caution that adopting a named practice does not by itself guarantee a regenerative outcome.
Practices commonly associated with regenerative agriculture in Southeast Asia include crop diversification and rotation, intercropping, cover crops, reduced or conservation tillage, agroforestry, biochar, residue incorporation, biological inputs, and integrated crop-livestock systems (Newton et al. 2020; Teng and Ludher 2026). The appropriate combination depends on the farming system, across the region—from irrigated rice and plantation agriculture to upland farming, mixed farming system, climate, soil, labor, land tenure, producer resources, market conditions, and intended outcomes.
Evidence from integrated smallholder farming systems reinforces the need for context-specific design. Tiemann and Douxchamps (2023) found that adoption of integrated systems by smallholders in Southeast Asia has not occurred at scale and identified farm- and community-level constraints, knowledge and data gaps, limited regional research, and weak institutional prioritization. Regenerative initiatives should therefore specify the problem being addressed, the practices selected, the expected outcomes, and the local conditions under which the intervention is intended to work.
Key Question
Are initiatives adapting regenerative principles to local farming systems and producer priorities or merely promoting a standard list of practices?
The strongest Southeast Asian evidence currently concerns soil organic carbon. Tan and Kuebbing (2023) reviewed 92 empirical studies covering 17 regenerative practices and 11 broad crop categories. Their synthesis found evidence that several practices, including biochar and organic amendments, can increase soil organic carbon. However, the authors also found import incorporation may increase methane or nitrous oxide emissions, potentially offsetting some climate benefits. Few studies measured soil carbon and greenhouse gas emissions together, and none completed a full greenhouse gas inventory.
The regional evidence is also uneven across practices and outcomes. Tan and Kuebbing (2023) identified limited evidence for agroforestry and residue management and called for greater sharing of field data. The open dataset developed by Gomez et al. (2024)—drawn from 209 publications and 4,341 observations—provides a resource for comparing soil organic carbon under different land uses and management practices. It is a data infrastructure contribution, however, and should not be treated as proof that a particular practice causes better outcomes.
Broader claims concerning biodiversity, water, productivity, profitability, food security, and rural livelihoods remain less consistently measured. Clear definitions and outcome indicators are therefore essential. Research should establish baselines, measure multiple outcomes over time, disclose trade-offs, and report the farming and socioeconomic conditions under which results were obtained (Newton et al. 2020; Schreefel et al. 2020; Tan and Kuebbing 2023; Gomez et al. 2024; Teng and Ludher 2026).
Key Question
Is evidence generation keeping pace with policy interest, and are regenerative agriculture initiatives measuring whole system outcomes rather than selected benefits alone?
Wider adoption of regenerative agriculture depends not only on identifying technical promising practices but also on creating the institutional, financial, and technical conditions that enable farmers to manage transition risks. Teng and Ludher( 2026) identify additional labor and investment requirements, uncertain short-term returns, limited advisory services, weak market incentives, unclear performance metrics, insecure tenure, and financing constraints among the barriers to adoption.
These constraints a can be especially consequential for smallholders with limited financial margins or little capacity to absorb temporary yield or income risks. Tiemann and Douxchamps (2023) similarly conclude that integrated systems have not been adopted at scale and that implementation is constrained by conditions at both farm and community levels. Promotion without extension, finance, market support, farmer organizations, and credible evidence may therefore produce short-lived pilots rather than sustained adoption.
Regional cooperation can help by supporting shared research, training, demonstration farms, farmer-to-farmer exchange, soil health measurement, digital tools, climate finance, and regional frameworks, while allowing countries to adapt implementation to local systems and priorities (ASEAN Secretariat 2025; ASEAN 2025; Teng and Ludher 2026). The central task is to make regenerative agriculture scientifically credible, economically feasible, accessible to producers—not simply more visible in policy documents .
Key Question
Are governments and development partners investing as much in farmer support, transition finance, extension, and measurement as in promoting regenerative agriculture itself?
Regenerative agriculture is relevant to Southeast Asia because the region must sustain food production while addressing degraded soils, biodiversity loss, water pressures, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate risk. Its potential value lies in treating soil health and ecosystem functions as part of agricultural productivity rather than as separate environmental objectives (Schreefel et al. 2020; Teng and Ludher 2026).
Healthy soils support nutrient cycling, water regulation, biodiversity, and other ecosystem functions. services. The regional soil carbon literature and the Gomez et al. (2024) dataset create a stronger foundation for comparing management practices across Southeast Asian agricultural systems, but they also reveal uneven evidence coverage and the need for better harmonized data (Schreefel et al. 2020; Tan and Kuebbing 2023; Gomez et al. 2024).
Regenerative agriculture should nevertheless not be treated as a universal solution or a protected label that guarantees results. Definitions vary, practices can produce different outcomes under different conditions, and some environmental gains may be accompanied by trade-offs. Credible use of the term therefore requires a clear working definition, a documented theory of change, locally appropriate practice selection, and outcome-based monitoring (Newton et al. 2020 Schreefel et al. 2020; Tan and Kuebbing 2023).
The most defensible regional position is neither to dismiss regenerative agriculture nor to promote it uncritically. Policy and investment should support careful testing, farmer participation, transparent measurement, and learning across different farming systems. Scaling should follow demonstrated environmental, economic, and social performance rather than policy interest alone (Teng and Ludher 2026; Tiemann and Douxchamps 2023).
Advancing regenerative agriculture in Southeast Asia requires clear definitions, locally appropriate implementation, credible evidence, and sustained support for producers.
The four shifts identify credible directions for further testing and support, but the evidence should be read with the following qualifications:
The following developments will indicate whether regional momentum is producing credible and measurable change:
Monitor whether the ASEAN Food, Agriculture and Forestry Sectoral Plan (FAF-SP) 2026–2030 and the ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Strategy on Food, Agriculture and Forestry (APTCS-FAF) 2026–2035 lead to clearly defined national programs, budgets, extension arrangements, financing, implementation targets, and public reporting (ASEAN Secretariat 2025; ASEAN 2025).
Look for policies, projects, and investment programs that define regenerative agriculture clearly and specify environmental, economic, and social outcomes rather than relying only on practice lists (Newton et al. 2020; Schreefel et al. 2020).
Assess sustained use by farmers and producer organizations, the characteristics of adopters and non-adopters, and whether interventions remain viable after initial project support (Tiemann and Douxchamps 2023; Teng and Ludher 2026)
Track soil organic carbon together with methane and nitrous oxide emissions, productivity, and relevant resource indicators so that gains in one measure are not mistaken for overall improvement (Tan and Kuebbing 2023).
Look for long-term evidence on biodiversity, water resources, farm productivity, profitability, labor, food security, and rural livelihoods across different farming systems (Teng and Ludher 2026).
Examine whether extension, training, farmer-to-farmer learning, demonstration farms, finance, tenure arrangements, and market incentives are reducing transition risks (Teng and Ludher 2026).
Monitor whether researchers expand and update open datasets, harmonize indicators, , share field data, and improve the comparability of evidence across Southeast Asia (Tan and Kuebbing 2023; Gomez et al. 2024).
Tracking these developments will provide insights into how countries translate regional commitments into national action while strengthening the resilience, sustainability, competitiveness, and inclusiveness of Southeast Asia's AFNR systems.
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). 2025. ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Strategy on Food, Agriculture and Forestry (APTCS-FAF) 2026–2035. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/APTCS-FAF-2026-2035final-to-be-published.pdf
ASEAN Secretariat. 2025. ASEAN Food, Agriculture and Forestry Sectoral Plan 2026–2030. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Dec25_Final_ASEAN-FAF-SP.pdf
Gomez, Federico, Ana Carcedo, Chan Makara Mean, Manuel Reyes, Lyda Hok, Florent Tivet, Vang Seng, P. V. Vara Prasad, and Ignacio A. Ciampitti. 2024. "A Dataset for Soil Organic Carbon in Agricultural Systems for the Southeast Asia Region." Scientific Data 11: 374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03213-3
Newton, Peter, Nicole Civita, Lee Frankel-Goldwater, Katherine Bartel, and Colleen Johns. 2020. "What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes." Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 577723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.577723
Schreefel, Loekie, Rogier P. O. Schulte, Imke J. M. de Boer, Annemiek Pas Schrijver, and Hannah H. E. van Zanten. 2020. "Regenerative Agriculture—The Soil Is the Base." Global Food Security 26: 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404
Tan, Stanley S. X., and Sara E. Kuebbing. 2023. "A Synthesis of the Effect of Regenerative Agriculture on Soil Carbon Sequestration in Southeast Asian Croplands." Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349: 108450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108450
Teng, Paul, and Elyssa Ludher. 2026. "Regenerative Agriculture for Climate Resilience and Food Security in Southeast Asia." ISEAS Perspective 2026, no. 45 (June 23). Singapore: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2026-45-regenerative-agriculture-for-climate-resilience-and-food-security-in-southeast-asia-by-paul-teng-and-elyssa-ludher/
Tiemann, Tassilo, and Sabine Douxchamps. 2023. "Opportunities and Challenges for Integrated Smallholder Farming Systems to Improve Soil Nutrient Management in Southeast Asia." World Development Sustainability 3: 100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2023.100080
Get the latest policy insights, research highlights, and knowledge resources from across Southeast Asia delivered straight to your inbox.
