FAQs
What is the Framework?
The Regen10 Outcomes Framework offers a holistic view of regenerative agrifood systems, defining the full scope of regenerative outcomes across ecological, social, economic, and governance dimensions, and across farm and landscape scales. It was developed with farmers and other land stewards at the center, grounding outcomes in their realities, needs, and goals. Rather than being a certification, assessment methodology, or compliance tool, it provides a shared reference for what regenerative agriculture and regenerative agrifood systems should deliver, enabling alignment without prescribing uniform approaches.
Certifications and standards define specific practices, set compliance thresholds, and verify adherence. The Regen10 Outcomes Framework does not do these. Instead, it describes what success looks like when regenerative agriculture is working: healthy and functioning soils, conserved and restored biodiversity, resilient ecosystems capable of sustaining ecological processes over time, dignified livelihoods, fair governance. It is the upstream reference that certifications, standards, assessment tools, programs, and strategies can align to. By focusing on outcomes rather than practices, it recognizes that the context in which farmers produce food differs across the world and enables them to apply context-appropriate strategies while remaining accountable to shared expectations.
The Framework is not a certification or standard, and it does not compete with those that are. It operates at a different level. Certification schemes like Regenerative Organic Certified, Rainforest Alliance's Regenerative Agriculture Standard, regenagri, and others each define what regenerative agriculture means within their scope, with their own metrics, practices, and verification protocols. These serve an essential function: they give farmers a pathway to demonstrate regenerative practice, and they give companies a basis for sourcing claims. The challenge is that as more schemes develop regenerative agriculture modules independently, the definitions, metrics, and claims they produce do not connect to each other. A company sourcing across commodities faces a different version of regenerative in every supply chain, and a farmer certified under one scheme has no way of knowing whether that recognition transfers to another.
The Outcomes Framework addresses this by providing a shared outcomes architecture that sits upstream of certification. It defines what regenerative food systems should deliver across 12 dimensions, covering ecological, social, economic, and governance outcomes, without prescribing specific practices or indicators. Certification bodies can work with Regen10 to map their standards against these outcomes, making visible which dimensions they cover, where their strengths are, and where outcomes sit outside their scope. This kind of mapping doesn't require any scheme to change its own methodology. It makes it possible to see how different schemes relate to the full scope of what regeneration requires, and to identify where coverage is strong and where systemic gaps persist across the ecosystem.
Early engagement with partners is already revealing consistent patterns, particularly around social, governance, and economic outcomes that are difficult for any single certification to address alone and that point to the need for broader action by funders, policymakers, and landscape-level coalitions.
This is not a deficiency in any individual scheme. It reflects the structural reality that no single certification can cover the full scope of what regeneration requires, which is precisely why a shared outcomes reference matters.
That is precisely the problem the Regen10 Outcomes Framework addresses. A review of the regenerative landscape identified over 150 different frameworks, assessments and tools. This creates fragmentation that makes it difficult for farmers to report, companies to compare claims, and policymakers to design coherent programs. The Framework does not add to this fragmentation; it provides the shared outcomes architecture that existing tools and initiatives can align to, enabling coherence. It is designed to strengthen what already exists rather than compete with it. Its distinct value is that it provides a shared outcomes reference across ecological, social, economic, and governance dimensions, and across both farm and landscape scales. To date, there is no other framework that brings together this full scope in one place. It is designed to help align existing tools and initiatives around a more coherent understanding of what regenerative systems should deliver.
The Framework is the product of a long-term, collaborative process over the last 2+ years. The Global Farm Metric, developed by Sustainable Food Trust, provided the starting point at the farm level. From there, the framework development was led by Regen10 partners with trials, consultations, and multiple input and review rounds with over 450 organizations and individuals across every region, and with the important addition of connected dimensions at the landscape level. This was not a process where consensus was pre-existing. It was deliberately built through structured deliberation, farm trials, expert review, and multiple cross-sectoral consultation cycles.
How it works
The Framework operates at farm and landscape levels. Farm-level outcomes describe what regenerative farms look like: healthy soils, thriving biodiversity, dignified livelihoods, reduced input reliance. Landscape-level outcomes describe what landscape systems must deliver for farm-level success to be possible and to last: hydrological systems that regulate water flow, economic systems that deliver fair and stable contracts, governance that safeguards secure and equitable tenure. This two-level architecture reflects a core insight: even the best-managed farm cannot succeed in the face of collapsing watersheds, extractive markets, or insecure tenure. And functioning systems are meaningless if farms are not stewarding land well. Regeneration means thriving farms embedded in systems that enable and sustain them.
The Framework uses "landscape" as the scale beyond the individual farm where ecological, social and economic dynamics interact across multiple farms, communities and institutions – and where coordination among multiple actors becomes possible. Many of the systems described in landscape-level outcomes extend beyond landscape. The landscape is therefore a practical unit where these wider systems become visible, and where outcomes can be observed and coordinated - unit of application, not the sole agent of change. The Framework also uses the term "landscape agrifood systems" to emphasize that food systems are place-based and shaped by local ecological, social, and economic conditions. For Indigenous Peoples, the Framework recognizes that the concept of "territory" carries deeper meaning around sovereignty, custodianship, and biocultural relationships, and includes a specific governance outcome addressing territorial integrity.
Across both levels, twelve interconnected dimensions span: air and climate, biodiversity, soil, water, livestock, crops and pasture, community, farmers and workers, governance, economics and finance, agricultural inputs, and infrastructure. This goes beyond the environmental to include social, economic, and governance dimensions that other frameworks often miss. These dimensions provide a way of organizing the Framework, but in reality they are deeply interconnected and influence one another. The wheel visualization reflects this by giving each dimension equal value and emphasizing their interdependence.
By focusing on outcomes rather than practices, the Framework recognizes that the context in which farmers produce food differs across the world. Regenerative agriculture has often been described through practices and principles, but ultimately regeneration must be judged by what those practices deliver for ecosystems and people. Healthy soils can be achieved through cover cropping, composting, reduced tillage, integrated livestock, and many other pathways depending on context. The outcome doesn't prescribe the pathway. This approach complements - and can be paired with - practice-based frameworks. It also means the Framework cannot be ‘gamed’ by ticking practice boxes without actually delivering outcomes: you can adopt every recommended practice and still have degrading soil. Outcome-based measurement tracks whether you are actually delivering on what matters.
The Framework is designed to complement and be paired with practice-based frameworks, not replace them. By focusing on outcomes rather than practices, it recognizes that the context in which farmers produce food differs across the world and enables them to apply context-appropriate strategies while remaining accountable to shared expectations of what regeneration should achieve. Practice-based frameworks describe how to farm regeneratively. The Regen10 Framework describes what regenerative farming should deliver. A farmer using cover crops, composting, and integrated livestock management (practices) is working toward healthy and functioning soils, conserved and restored biodiversity, and reduced input dependency (outcomes). Because some outcomes may take years to manifest and may be the responsibility of multiple actors, practices can also serve as short-term proxies for progress while the longer-terms outcomes emerge. Both perspectives are needed. Standards developers and assessment tools are invited to use the Framework as a reference structure, mapping their indicators to shared outcomes, improving interoperability, and strengthening the credibility of their approaches.
Before selecting what to measure, it helps to be clear on what outcomes you're measuring toward. Indicator selection is often treated as a technical exercise, but it's also a scoping decision: the indicators you choose reflect which dimensions of regeneration your program or tool addresses, and which it doesn't. If your M&E framework covers soil health, biodiversity, and carbon but doesn't account for governance, livelihoods, or community relationships, that's a scope choice with consequences for what your program is accountable to.
The Outcomes Framework provides the holistic outcomes reference for that upstream step: understanding the full picture of what regeneration should deliver across 12 dimensions before narrowing to the indicators appropriate for your context. The indicator selection itself happens through implementation tools designed for that purpose. The Framework doesn't replace that work. It ensures the indicators you select are oriented toward the full scope of regeneration rather than a subset.
Outcome-level interoperability means that diverse tools, standards, and programs can see how they relate to each other and to the full scope of what regeneration requires, without having to harmonize their metrics or merge their methodologies. Two schemes might use completely different soil health indicators because their contexts demand it, but both can show they're working toward the same outcome. The Framework provides the shared reference that makes this possible: diverse measurement approaches oriented toward common outcomes. The ecosystem gains coherence without requiring standardization.
Using the Framework
The Framework serves farmers and land stewards, landscape partnerships and coalitions, companies and supply chain actors, funders and investors, policymakers and public agencies, standards developers and assessment tools, and intermediaries and technical partners. Different actors engage with the Framework in different ways depending on their role within agrifood systems. Farmers and land stewards are central - but in practice, most farmers will engage with the Framework through intermediaries such as extension workers, farmer organizations, buyers, and programs who translate outcomes into actionable, context-specific guidance. Companies and supply chain actors can use it to ground sourcing strategies in shared outcomes. Funders can shape investment criteria. Policymakers can inform national strategies and create enabling conditions. Standards developers can map their indicators to shared outcomes. The Framework is designed so that each actor type can see their role in delivering regenerative outcomes - and critically, can see what other actors in the system must deliver for farm-level success to be possible.
The Framework offers even advanced practitioners a broader lens. Most regenerative approaches focus on a subset of dimensions - typically soil, biodiversity, and climate. The Framework spans 12 dimensions including governance, economics, community, and infrastructure. For a farmer already doing excellent work on soil health and biodiversity, the Framework can surface the systemic conditions that enable or constrain that work - fair markets, secure tenure, accessible finance, safe working conditions. It also helps farmers articulate the value of what they're already doing across the full scope of regenerative outcomes, supporting more effective engagement with buyers, funders, and policymakers.
Intermediaries and technical partners - including farmer organizations, extension services, agronomists, consultants, and researchers - play a critical role in how the Framework reaches farmers. In practice, most farmers will engage with the Framework through intermediaries who translate outcomes into actionable, context-specific guidance and assessments. Farmers make daily decisions, so a trusted facilitator may support farmers to bridge that gap from systems theory to locally relevant practice. Regen10 provides the shared reference point, while intermediaries translate outcomes into context-specific guidance that supports, rather than replaces, local decision-making.
Start by exploring the Framework on the microsite and considering what it reveals about your current work - which of the 12 dimensions are you already engaging with, and which are absent from your approach? That diagnostic reflection is a valuable first step, even before any formal application.
From there, engagement depends on where you sit and what you're trying to do.
Farmer organizations can use the Framework to articulate what regenerative outcomes look like in their context, and critically, to articulate what farmers need from the systems around them - fair markets, secure tenure, accessible finance - and to advocate for those conditions. For many smallholder farmers, outcomes-based frameworks become meaningful when translated into practical guidance, locally relevant indicators, and capacity-building support delivered through trusted intermediaries. Farmer organizations, extension services, consultants, and technical partners play a critical role in bridging the Framework's outcomes with the day-to-day decisions farmers make, and the Framework is designed to support that translation rather than bypass it.
Landscape partnerships can use the Framework as a shared reference for aligning diverse stakeholders around common priorities, navigating trade-offs across ecological, social, and economic objectives, and grounding transition planning in clearly defined outcomes at both farm and landscape levels.
If you're designing or running a program, shaping investment criteria, or developing policy, the Framework can help you sense-check the completeness of your approach against the 12 dimensions and ground your work in the full scope of what regeneration should deliver rather than a partial view. Funders and investors can use it to align capital with shared outcomes, and policy actors can use it to define what regenerative agriculture means in regulation and public programs.
If you're an NGO or civil society organization advocating for regenerative agriculture, the Framework gives you a shared language for what the food system should deliver for farmers, communities, and ecosystems, and a basis for holding system actors to account against those outcomes.
Standards, certifications, and assessment tools can map their indicators against the Framework's outcomes to understand their coverage and identify gaps, improving interoperability and strengthening the credibility of their approaches against a shared outcomes reference.
Organizations like One Acre Fund, LandScale, and Rare engaged with the Framework during its development and have already applied it to real decisions - from building indicator packages to designing landscape assessments lenses and aligning country teams.
We recognize that for many actors, the question of how to engage credibly will need more guidance. Later in 2026, Regen10 will release Regenerative Journey guidance providing practical, audience-specific pathways for engaging with the Framework at different stages and depths. In the meantime, the Framework and its illustrative indicators are available on the microsite, and we welcome conversations about how it connects to your work - reach out to us at info@regen10.org.
The Framework defines the outcomes a regenerative project should be accountable to, but it does not prescribe indicators, methodologies, or timelines for measuring progress. It will not tell you what to measure in year one or how to demonstrate short-term results. What it will do is help you check whether your project's scope reflects the full picture of regeneration, or whether you are measuring some dimensions while overlooking others. If your M&E structure covers soil health, biodiversity, and carbon but does not account for governance, livelihoods, or community relationships, the Framework makes that gap visible. The indicator selection itself happens through other tools designed for that purpose. The Framework is the upstream step: knowing what outcomes you should be oriented toward before choosing how to measure progress.
Yes. One Acre Fund has used the Framework to build an indicator package for millions of smallholder farmers across sub-Saharan Africa, aligning internal country teams around shared outcomes while allowing context-specific measurement. LandScale has developed a regenerative agriculture assessment lens for their landscape-level tool, directly referencing the Regen10 Outcomes Framework. Rare has drawn on the Framework to develop an indicator package for their regenerative agriculture work in Colombia.
Addressing concerns
The Framework is designed to reduce fragmentation, not add to it. By providing a common outcomes reference, it enables different actors to align around the same outcomes structure rather than requiring farmers to report against competing systems. Indicator selection and measurement should be tailored to the setting, governed by stakeholders, and proportionate to available data and resources. The same indicator may be measured using different metrics depending on context. Most importantly, the Framework positions farm-level measurement as a collective responsibility of all agrifood system actors, not farmers alone.
The Framework was developed with farmers and other land stewards at the center, grounding outcomes in their realities, needs, and goals. It explicitly recognizes farmers, farm workers, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and other land stewards as rights-holders and essential stewards. The landscape-level outcomes place responsibility on systems to deliver fair and stable contracts, secure tenure, accessible finance, safe working conditions, among many others. When the system fails to deliver these, accountability is distributed but traceable: which actors within those systems failed to act? This protects farmers from being blamed for systemic failures. The Framework also helps farmers articulate what they need from the systems around them to make farm-level regeneration viable. The Framework is designed to be applicable to all land-based farming systems, regardless of size, product or location.
The Framework is designed to evolve, guided by monitoring, evaluation, and learning from real-world applications. Regen10 is establishing a planned and collaborative process for periodic review and update based on learnings and evidence from application, stakeholder feedback, and developments in the wider regenerative ecosystem. Place-based testing is happening in Brazil and Kenya in 2026, and alignment work with partner initiatives will directly inform how the Framework develops. The Framework grows alongside collective insights and innovations.