The US Midwest: 140 million acres of corn and soybeans, rural economies slowly dying, a system with no real long-term future in terms of soil or human health. It’s also where roughly 25% of farmland could flip the entire region toward regeneration, but only if you coordinate capital the right way.

Ivana Gazibara, director of Systemic Investment Programmes at TransCap Initiative, spent two years mapping the intervention points needed to drive systemic change across the agricultural heartland. She uncovered something unexpected: money isn’t the problem. Coordination is. Venture capital, public funders, and philanthropists all allocate capital into regenerative agriculture, but almost never in the same room together, much less actively collaborating. The result? Capital that’s supposed to be systemic lands as scattered bets.

The solution: the Regenerative Agriculture Capital Orchestrator (RACO), a blueprint for deploying $1.4 billion in catalytic capital to attract $7.5 billion more, organised around four pillars: system intelligence platform, capital matchmaking, catalytic finance, and field building. Systems change made concrete: what it costs per acre, how to move money at scale, what happens when you stop treating regeneration as a one-off problem and start treating it as a reshaping of incentives across lending, insurance, and investment.
Because you can’t finance a transition you haven’t mapped, and you can’t scale a transition if money isn’t deliberately coordinated to reach.

WHY YOUR CROP INSURANCE POLICY DISQUALIFIES YOU FROM CROP ROTATION

A farmer decides to rotate crops to improve soil health. They plant one field to legumes, another to a cover crop mix. But when they file a crop insurance claim the next year, the insurer rejects it. In the conventional farming insurance market, crop rotation is treated as a red flag, not a green one. This is systemic disincentive baked into how risk is underwritten. Ivana encountered this pattern across the Midwest: insurance products, lending vehicles, and subsidy structures all align around monoculture continuity, not transition. A farmer attempting regenerative practices isn’t just fighting soil biology and market prices. They’re fighting the financial infrastructure itself. This is why she says changing finance becomes the gateway to changing farming. You can’t finance a transition that the system is actively punishing.

“As a grower, you can’t really get insured if you do crop rotation in a lot of cases. It’s not that the structures don’t exist, it’s that we need to shift incentives. Those kinds of disincentives, they become structural after a while. So they start to shape the culture of farming.” — Ivana Gazibara

ONE-PLUS-ONE-EQUALS-THREE INVESTING: WHY SUPPORTING CHESTNUTS MEANS BUILDING PROCESSING PLANTS

Given the structural barriers that no single investment can overcome, what does regenerative agriculture actually need? A venture fund backs a chestnut farmer cooperative. Good investment, isolated impact. But a farmer transitioning to chestnuts faces what Ivana encountered across every regenerative system: the yield gap that kills cash flow during transition, the lack of processing infrastructure, the absence of buyer networks. That’s why she calls for “one-plus-one-equals-three investing”—the recognition that regenerative systems require combinatorial capital. The venture deal needs technical assistance programs, a first-loss loan guarantee, processing infrastructure investment, and a fund ecosystem that can absorb and scale capital across the whole system. Each investment reinforces the others. The farmer has room to grow. The buyer is guaranteed. Risk shifts from individual actors to the system itself. This mirrors how conventional agriculture organized itself—all coordinated, all profitable. Only deliberateness separates the two.

“You probably need to support a TA program that’s gonna help farmers learn how to grow chestnuts. You probably need to provide a sort of first loss tranche into a loan product. It’s this ecosystem of interventions that you really need to support that mission. It’s one plus one equals three. That’s what we need to make happen.” — Ivana Gazibara

THE 25% TIPPING POINT: WHY MIDWESTERN FARMLAND NEEDS A STUBBORN MINORITY

If one-plus-one-equals-three investing is the framework, what scale does it need to actually move a system? Converting 140 million acres of corn and soybeans is impossible in a decade. But converting 25%—roughly 35 million acres—might flip the entire region. This isn’t optimism. It’s minority influence theory, research from social tipping points showing that when a persistent minority reaches approximately 25%, its influence becomes self-sustaining and spreads. Ivana and TransCap used this to set their goal: deploy $1.4 billion in catalytic capital over 10 years, mobilize another $7.5 billion in investment capital, transition a quarter of Midwestern farmland to regenerative practices. Once you hit that 25% mark, the math shifts. Market infrastructure forms around the new normal. Suppliers follow. Insurance companies redesign products. What was heretical becomes convention. The tipping point isn’t 100%. It never is. It’s the size at which resistance becomes futile.

“A kind of persistent, consistent minority can over time influence the majority. We know this. There’s been a lot of work around social tipping points and the point of social contagion being when a minority reaches roughly that 25%. Research shows us across a number of different contexts that the influence of that minority becomes self-sustaining and starts to spread.” — Ivana Gazibara

THE BEEF CARBON FOOTPRINT MYTH THAT HAUNTS REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE

The framework exists. The scale is mapped. But convincing funders, investors, and the wider public is harder than it should be. A seminal Oxford paper assessed 50,000 farms worldwide and concluded beef has a massive carbon footprint. It became gospel. Now it haunts the regenerative movement—the meme that keeps getting repeated, even by people curious about regeneration. The problem isn’t the research. It’s the generalization. Yes, a feedlot cow fed imported soy has a brutal carbon footprint. But a small grass-fed herd operating as a closed system on intensively grazed pasture? Completely different carbon profile. “Human brains like to minimize complexity” Ivana observes. So we flatten the nuance and repeat the meme. The same dynamic kills other conversations—”organic can’t feed the world,” “regenerative ag is just marketing.” These become sticky because they’re simpler than the truth. And the truth is genuinely complex: integrated farming systems sequester carbon in soil, build biodiversity, improve water infiltration. But a diet of only plants grown in large-scale monocrops shipped thousands of miles isn’t automatically better. Regenerative agriculture’s real problem isn’t proving it works. It’s explaining why the narrative is more tangled than the slogans allow.

“Our human brains like to just minimize that complexity. If you’re eating beef from a huge feedlot that’s fed imported soy, it’s gonna have a massive carbon footprint. But the beef from your local farm that operates a closed herd, it’s small, it’s grass-fed—it’s gonna have a really different footprint. The issue is that our human brains like to just minimize that complexity.” — Ivana Gazibara

Koen and Ivana Gazibara also talked about:

• Catalytic capital mobilization
• 25% minority influence
• One-plus-one-equals-three investing

More Episodes on this topic

• Tania Rodriguez Riestra – Systems change investing done right

Links:

• Regenerative Agriculture Prototype – Transition Mapping by TransCap Initiative
• Regenerative Agriculture Capital Orchestrator (RACO Midwest) — Financial platform aligning capital flows to accelerate regenerative agriculture in the US Midwest
• Poore and Nemecek (2018) — Seminal Oxford University study “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers” on carbon footprint of foods
• Financial Backbones – Capital Orchestration for Systems Transformation
• Financial Backbones for Strategic Capital Orchestration

More about our guest:
Ivana Gazibara is Director of Systemic Investment Programmes at the TransCap Initiative, a futures and systems change expert with over two decades of experience in sustainability strategy and innovation. She specializes in designing financial infrastructure that coordinates diverse capital flows to finance the transition to regenerative agriculture at scale, most notably through her work on the capital orchestrator — a platform that aggregates and blends different types of capital into “polycapital” portfolios. Her background in fostering sustainability practices in emerging economies through her work at SustainAbility in India and Brazil positions her as a foremost expert on systems change, making her uniquely positioned to address how strategic capital alignment can accelerate regenerative agriculture transitions in the American Midwest.

——————————————

Feedback, comments, suggestions? Reach me via Twitter @KoenvanSeijen, in the comments below or through Get in Touch on this website.

Join the Investing in Regenerative Agriculture and Food newsletter on www.eepurl.com/cxU33P

The above references an opinion and is for information and educational purposes only. It is not intended to be investment advice. Seek a duly licensed professional for investment advice.