Regenerative Agriculture for Food Supply Chain Resilience

What if 70–95% of your emissions sit on farms you’ve never even seen?
And what happens to your supply chain when those farms face depleted soils, rising costs, and climate shocks all at once?

In this episode, I’m joined by Rhyannon Galea and Kristjan Luha from eAgronom, a team helping thousands of farmers across Europe shift to regenerative practices and generate the credible primary data food companies now need for Scope 3 reporting. We dig into why agriculture remains the most opaque, and most consequential, part of modern supply chains, and why resilience increasingly begins in the soil rather than the warehouse.

You’ll hear how complex value chains, missing data, and inconsistent incentives have kept Scope 3 action stuck on PowerPoint for years, and how that’s finally starting to change. We uncover why regenerative agriculture can strengthen yields and resilience, yet still takes five careful seasons to transition. And you might be surprised to learn how tractors, satellites, and field-level sensors are quietly rewriting how companies measure emissions, reward farmers, and prepare for CSRD and SBTi FLAG.

If you’re wrestling with Scope 3, agricultural emissions, or supply chain resilience, this one will give you a clearer path through the noise.

🎙️ Listen now to hear how eAgronom is reshaping the future of sustainable and resilient food systems.

Podcast supporters
I'd like to sincerely thank this podcast's generous Subscribers:

• Christian Sederberg
• Kristal Maharaj
• Alicia Farag
• Kieran Ognev

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction to Climate Resilience in Farming
• 1:44 Meet the Experts: Rhiannon and Kristjan
• 3:00 Challenges in Tackling Scope Three Emissions
• 7:04 Data Collection and Its Importance
• 12:20 Solutions and Benefits of Regenerative Agriculture
• 29:07 Future Outlook and Final Thoughts

Transcript

Rhyannon Galea: 0:03

The increasing weather extremes that we're expecting are going to directly impact farmers. And this opens a topic of resilience. So how can farms and our food sector be resilient in the face of a changing climate?

Tom Raftery: 0:20

Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in the world. Welcome to episode 94 of the Resilient Supply Chain Podcast. I'm your host, Tom Rry. In the food sector, resilience doesn't begin in warehouses or factories. It begins in the soil. For most companies, 70 to 95% of emissions sit in scope. Three on farms they don't own, don't control, and often can't even see. And those same farms are now exposed to climate shocks, depleted soils, and volatile input costs that can ripple straight through the value chain. So the real question is, how do you build a resilient low carbon supply chain when its foundations lie outside your four walls? To dig into this, I'm joined by two people working directly at that Crossroads, Riann and Gal and Christian Luha from E Agron, helping thousands of farmers transition to regenerative practices, strengthen soil health and generate the credible primary data. Food companies desperately. From traceability to incentives to real world farmer engagement. This is a practical look at what it actually takes to turn scope three, ambition into measurable success. Rhiannon Christian, welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourselves with maybe Rhiannon going first? Hi everyone. Welcome to the Resilient Supply Chain Podcast. My name is Tom Raftery, and with me on the show today, I have my two special guests, Rhyannon and Kristjan, Rhyannon. and Kristjan, would you like to introduce yourselves with maybe Rhyannon going first?

Rhyannon Galea: 2:06

Sure. Happy to be here, Tom. It's good to be representing eAgronom here on the podcast today. We're a company that, helps farmers transition to regenerative agricultural practices. And we are also enabling the food sector actors that buy products from these farmers to reduce their emissions in a claimable and verifiable way. And I am a specialist in setting up environmental projects and I am doing so by structuring partnerships with the food sector in Europe.

Tom Raftery: 2:39

Fantastic, Kristjan.

Kristjan Luha: 2:41

And I am Kristjan. I partner with Rhyannon on doing all the work she described and in the process helping growers and farmers across Europe to transition towards more sustainable and resilient farming practices.

Tom Raftery: 2:56

Okay, fantastic. So let's talk initially Kristjan about why Scope three emissions in food are so difficult to tackle compared to Scope one and Scope two.

Kristjan Luha: 3:07

Maybe as a starting point , they are very large. So if we look at any company's climate impact and the size of their greenhouse gas footprint, and especially in food and agriculture sector a very large component of this actually most of those emissions are part of the scope three. And that usually comes from the farms from the growers. From the dairy units or from the soil. That I guess is the first reason. But where it gets complicated is that there are often multiple challenges that get on way, you know, these could be traceability, you know, which farms actually are growing the inputs for me. And if you would have traceability then how to impact those emissions on the farms. So it requires quite complex and multifaceted efforts to help these growers and farmers to transition and apply something different. A new set of practices. And so I guess we'll get into this, but yeah, many complexities, a complex supply chains as well. Yeah. Maybe Rhyannon, would you have anything to add here?

Rhyannon Galea: 4:16

I think they're the, the big ones. Yeah. Traceability to the farm is one of the constant struggles of companies that are in the value chain, the food sector, value chain . They can be many tiers of handovers and processes and transformations away from the actual farm. And of course there's complex procurement requirements as well. And so if you are buying from different actors each year, you often don't have a constant or a stable connection to a singular farm. And so as a result, what these companies who draw their corporate emission footprint boundaries according to scope one, two, and three often end up with a scope three that could be 70 to 95% of their footprint and no real influence or control over them directly.

Tom Raftery: 5:05

And, what's the cost of not engaging farmers meaningfully in climate action?

Rhyannon Galea: 5:13

Farmers are kind of, frontline actors in the climate challenge that we all know quite well. So, farmers themselves when we're talking about emission reductions and removals in this sense, we're often seeing the farmers as one of the primary actors to influence that emissions value. So we want to help them drive this down. But the other side of this coin is that there are the weather events and shocks, the increasing weather extremes that we're expecting are going to directly impact farmers. And this opens a topic of resilience. So how can farms and our food sector be resilient in the face of a changing climate? So when we are really thinking about engaging farmers, we're doing two things. We're trying to drive down our corporate emissions because we all have targets, and we're also trying to make sure that our food system is resilient as the inevitable climate change comes forth.

Kristjan Luha: 6:16

In addition to being more resilient towards challenging weather and climate conditions, very often what we see in industrial agriculture is that there's a slow but consistent depletion or an exhaustion of soil organic matter. So we are trending in the wrong direction and this by definition is not sustainable over a long term. So we are taking little bit more nutrients out of the soil, then we are putting in and we compensate for that gap with the fertilisers, with inputs. So this too is not sustainable and that also can be mitigated by helping these farms to transition towards some more sustainable farming practices.

Tom Raftery: 7:00

And what about access to data, because I'm sure there's a huge spectrum of digitisation on farms going from completely analog to quite digital or even very digital?

? Rhyannon Galea: 7:16

Data is a big challenge in this space. We need to think about this from sort of two ends. Think about it from the corporate actor in the value chain. When they're trying to build up their corporate inventory the first thing that they do is they look for averages that are representative of the place and the commodity that they're buying. And these are, you know, usually in databases or some sort of literature and, and then they use this average to build up their footprint. And that gets them their first milestone, which is actually understanding what the scale of their emissions are. But to actually drive this down, you then need to start really localising this data. And so you need to try and we call it primary data, go and get data from the farms firsthand. And that then runs into the problems of traceability that we were talking about. But it also runs into other challenges of things like data standardisation, whether the data is collected at all. And then of course there's the challenges of quantification and being rigorous and, and working in with validated data sets and, and emission claims. So that's one side. And the other side, as you can imagine, is collecting that data in the first place from farms and actually, how do you enable them to do this and also incentivise them to do this because

Tom Raftery: 8:39

Of course.

Rhyannon Galea: 8:40

farm farms have been keeping field logs and, and whatnot for, for a long time because they have their own forms of reporting, but many, depending who you meet, this farm might still be doing it by hand. And so this move towards digitisation of farm data has, well, it has some inherent challenges in, in uptake. It also, we have deadlines that we need this data by. We need to also make sure this data is collected in a really, verifiable way. But I think it speaks to a bigger problem that if you are taking this data from farms, and the farm is getting no benefit from it, then you're asking them to do something that's purely administrative. And that's a big challenge that we try to solve through our efforts with our farm management system and our data collection functions for sustainability programs. Which is to make sure that that data set is being returned to farms in a way that they can use it, and trying to come with other sort of value for the farm that they wouldn't get if they were just filling out someone's survey. And then that was just be, you know, they have no control over then where that data goes. So quite some challenges to solve and data really becomes quite a nexus and a focal point for programs in this space.

Tom Raftery: 10:02

What kind of value are you referring to for the farmers from the data?

Rhyannon Galea: 10:06

Yeah, so, for example being able to use this data to make on-farm management decisions. So how can it inform their agronomic decision making and and, and then also their day-to-day farm management, for example, if they have multiple workers, they can work on planning and task management. But then of course they have their own reporting obligations to the government. So being able to make sure that that's conveniently delivered and, and fast and in an appropriate format for them. That's sort of the beginning, but there's a world as well where farms are now subscribing to sustainability programs and, being asked for information from many of their buyers, especially in rotational systems where they're growing multiple crops. That means multiple surveys from different actors and also being able to get that . Not have a a massive survey burden for each and every interested party is another, big value. Kristjan, would you add anything?

Kristjan Luha: 11:05

Absolutely. And our vision really is that we are building a, platform and infrastructure where the data is collected just once. And done in a way that minimises the administrative burden and manual effort by the farmer. It's maximally automated, but also reliable and actually much more reliable than the survey-based tools that are often used with farmers in these context where they would need to remember what they did last week or maybe even three months ago on a particular field. Which pass it was and what was applied and what was the application rate? All of those little data points influence the outcome, quantification outcome a lot. We have built system a system that automates that. Then, you know, a farmer maybe doesn't even need to open their laptop very often. All of that data is collected in one place. Whoever asks for it, you know, which of their off takers for different types of crops. The data is already there and is reportable and reliable and verified.

Tom Raftery: 12:10

Okay, so that's a lot of the challenges that are going on. What about some of the solutions, what's working on the ground? How, how does regenerative agriculture change the equation for soil health, for yields, for carbon, for things like that?

Rhyannon Galea: 12:25

There's a lot of benefits to regenerative agriculture, but also maybe it's just worth quickly noting what that actually is. And there's been many efforts to standardise that definition, but I think the pillars are increasing soil cover and reducing soil disturbance. So, interventions that we often talk about when we run programs for farmers with farmers for food sector clients is we talk about reducing tillage. I think most people can envision a, an idea of soil being turned over. We see this with, this was something we associate often with farming. And the other is increasing the soil cover. So in between crops, planting a cover crop, and that also is part of a effort to increase the biodiversity of what's growing in that. Field. So you have the main crops that are usually in a rotation, but then you also can be adding further diversity through cover cropping or even under sowing of main crops. And all of this it's targeting a few key outcomes, and usually one of those is building soil organic matter. And this also is known as soil carbon. When we invert the soil, we are usually exposing all these microbes to oxygen, and they just go, into a frenzy and they basically speed up their decomposition and it releases carbon from the soil. So by reducing tillage and keeping that soil structure intact you can reduce the losses of soil carbon, and you can even through things like cover cropping and increasing the organic matter that's growing in the soil and being returned and kept in the soil, actually turn that equation around from a depleting system, to a sequestering system. And when we do that, we start to get outcomes like increased water holding capacity, which means that they're a little bit more resilient when there's less rain. And of course this can also contribute to yield if every other farm is not irrigated around you and your got all that little bit more water holding capacity in your soil. It can have a positive outcome on yield, and the diversity as well can really improve the resilience of that soil to pests and diseases as well. So there is a lot of benefits, but I think it's worth pointing out that changing from the conventional extractive agricultural system to one that is what we call regenerative is something that doesn't happen overnight. You can't just stop and change immediately. It needs quite sensitive and patient transition. It could also mean new equipment which is another big expense. And so this timeline of transitioning is usually put safely around a, the five year mark to do it slowly.

Tom Raftery: 15:20

Okay. And I can imagine it's also quite geographically sensitive as well. I mean, a lot of the crops around me here in Seville would be things like olives and oranges, which regenerative agriculture for producing those, the techniques would be quite different, I suspect, from producing wheat or barley or corn or any crops that might be more common in Northern Europe.

Kristjan Luha: 15:44

Partially maybe, but I think it might be surprising, but there's a significant overlap still. With perennial crops maybe these practices are related more to pruning. So when you prune the trees, what happens with the biomass that is now removed potentially from the field, maybe it can be left underground. There's also some soil disturbance in these systems with orchards, so this can be reduced and cover cropping would potentially be even more effective because you could essentially cover crop all year round between the trees and around the trees. Mm-hmm.

Tom Raftery: 16:21

Sure, And for the food companies who are on the receiving end, how do they design Scope Three programs that actually work in the field, not just on paper.

Rhyannon Galea: 16:33

Yeah, this is exactly what we do and what we aim to set up with companies. You can imagine identifying exactly where you are even sourcing is probably the first major challenge for these companies if they don't directly know the farmers already. So supplier engagement becomes one of the first steps. So maybe they buy from cooperatives or traders or some sort of logistics companies in between. Engaging those companies to become the connection to their pharma is one of the first steps that needs to be taken. And then of course from there it's, it can be highly custom. So finding out what these farms are already doing and their potential to improve their emissions profile is another sort of early stage step that we have to go through. And of course that could involve a baseline data collection. So understanding what that farmer has been doing over the past years. And from there, I think one of the big challenges and also opportunities for the food sector as opposed to other forms of sustainability programs is the farmer incentive framework that you are bringing. Farmers aren't going to do this overnight, and they're also not gonna do this for free. They need support and it is their work that is going to contribute to the resilience of that food sector's company's business. Then we need to start looking at how can we adequately incentivise those farms so that they can confidently and you know, knowing what's in it for them, go and start doing what you're asking them to do. So, this is something we do. We, we help to consult with these companies to come up with an adequate incentive scheme. And basically from there, it operates all very, you know, you need to go to the farms and bring this value proposition to them. You need to do so in a way and a time that has enough time in the lead up to the first interventions that you're asking, and that can involve a recruitment phase. It can involve consultations that are usually one-on-one per farm to look at their unique opportunities and what it means for their bottom lines. This is also a piece of work that we and our local teams do. And then that farm needs to have that planning window to be able to go and, for example, buy the cover cropping seeds. And so that's pretty much the cycle in the setup. And annually then we run into the data collection cycle, the quantification and reporting all in time for the food company's sustainability reports.

Tom Raftery: 19:17

Okay. And what kind of incentives, I presume it's monetary incentives and it's coming from carbon credits. Is that a fair assessment?

Kristjan Luha: 19:27

Not necessarily.

Tom Raftery: 19:28

Okay.

Kristjan Luha: 19:29

before, before we even talk about you know, economic incentives or financial incentives. One of the things farmers really appreciate and value is knowledge transfer. So to to really understand what is it that they could be doing differently in their farms in their um, location. You know, what part of the world they may be farming, the weather conditions, climates conditions soil types are completely different. And this is one type of work we also do, and many food and beverage companies don't have these resources to engage farmers directly in this manner. We have our own agronomy teams in multiple countries. We are running multi-year field trials in a number of regions where we can take these learnings, bring farmers together, have smaller and bigger events. I think we do over 50 events every year in our countries of operation where farmers can get, you know, a little bit of education, inspiration and, demonstratable differences on on fields where those practices are being applied in their neighborhoods, you know, in, in the, their surroundings. So that's really, really valuable for them to get some of that, early knowledge on how could I trans transfer, you know, from one system to another. But yes, financial incentives are also appreciated. And those could be designed in multiple ways. Rhyannon, for example, you, you've been having a lot of conversations with food companies around how to construct these schemes.

Rhyannon Galea: 20:57

Yeah. I think we can lump them into a sort of few big categories. There's outcome based payments and I would put carbon credits as one of these, which means the farmer gets paid after they've taken the steps based on the outcomes that they achieved through their interventions. And this is usually something that requires, you have to sort of do the activity, go through the data collection and quantification, and then see what you've achieved. The problem with this is that actually, there is so much I guess sensitivity of the models for example, we use soil modeling and also soil sampling to detect the increase of soil carbon. But this can be so dependent on so many different management practices, but also soil type, which is influenced by geography, that it's can be difficult to promise that if you do X you'll get Y and it makes it a risky proposition sometimes for a farm. So maybe not the right strategy depending on your farmers to engage them and get them to do what you are asking. So another form of incentive is practice based payments, which is we are asking you to cover crop. And the outcomes will come and we'll deal with that. But we'll pay you just simply for having done this activity as an example. And that means that the finance could be unlocked earlier in the relationship as well. It could be done either beforehand or sooner after the cover cropping is done. Remembering that that's happening right at the beginning of the agronomic calendar. So, usually there's a whole year after that that goes by till you harvest the main crop that you are then interested in. So, practice-based payments can bring that payment cycle earlier, And then there's also a premium on the product that the company and the farmer are transacting on. And this is an interesting one. We already see crop quality, for example as an indicator of price. So if you meet certain conditions on protein content, for example your crop might be worth more than say, one that was less. Now we can sort of conceptualise that and we sort of expect actually that this is the future where emission profile of a commodity, will also start to result in a variation of price. And so this is sort of a world that we think is coming and we, we are getting signals that this low emission crop has a, it's desirable for the food chain that's buying and transforming that crop into something later. So, we imagine that that data around emissions is gonna become basically a transaction variable in the future. And so this is partly our work as well is to, even if there's not a sustainability program necessarily attached to a farm yet, then preparing those farms to be able to competitively engage with a new market variable is also something that we find to be a, future proofing and sort of forward thinking strategy for a lot of our farmers.

Tom Raftery: 24:18

Okay. If these variables are going to translate into money, obviously the quality and the trustworthiness of the data is going to be absolutely vital. So how do you guarantee that the, the data coming is trustworthy and verifiable?

Rhyannon Galea: 24:40

Ah! Well, that's a, a process in and of itself. We have a number of ways to validate the accuracy of data that's submitted or collected. It's sort of the brain child of our agronomy team and our data team and product team to sort of alert farmers to inconsistent data right as they're putting it in based on agronomic reality and what's the norm. So, that's one layer. And then of course there's the checks that we do. Sometimes this can involve comparing with satellite data sets to check that, what they've reported is correct. This happens already at even the governmental level. When you're submitting your data to the government, they often check that accuracy using satellites, and we do a little bit of the same. Satellites can be used to detect a number of data points, but they are limited in what they can capture. So the rest can be checked via audits and that can involve coming and actually running through farm records to make sure that claims are correct. So actually getting verified data is not a not a small undertaking, and it takes a lot of work.

Tom Raftery: 25:52

Sure.

Kristjan Luha: 25:53

And, we also have built integrations with the newer devices that are used by farmers. I mean tractors here and harvesters. Those machines usually have data centers on them so we can pull data directly from these machines. So we would know, you know, when an activity occurred on which field and, and how much fuel was consumed during that time and so forth. But we have also built our own solutions that are compatible with any kind of a tractor, old or new that farmers are using, it's easy to install. It integrates directly with our software platform and it pulls a lot of data from the activity directly and automatically into our software. And it's GPS enabled. Plus provides a lot of additional data points. So that is one of the tools that achieves on the one side a data reliability, which is very high and proven, and on the other side reduces and minimises the survey burden that farmers have, the administrative burden that they would otherwise have in entering this data manually.

Tom Raftery: 27:01

And you're working across something like two and half million hectares, and 3,500 farmers. Are you seeing actual impacts from this either in emissions or profitability or resilience, or all of the above?

Kristjan Luha: 27:16

Well, yes and a lot. With these farms that we have so far enrolled into various sustainability programs are on the way to sequester over 1 million tons of CO2 equivalent on an annual basis. They're also reducing their greenhouse gas emissions on the farms from the fuel use of course, and reduced fertiliser use. So on, on, on that side, their climate impact is already significant, but also the payments that they are going to receive for applying these practices on their farms are going to be significant. I think we expect to make tens of millions of farmer payments during the course of 2026, and we'll continue growing these programs in Europe and enrolling more and more farms into, our programs every month. And every year.

Tom Raftery: 28:07

Okay, great. Fantastic. And has there been anything that has really surprised you in the data or the field results?

Kristjan Luha: 28:14

That's a good question. Is there something Rhyannon that we didn't expect? Maybe one would be that the results can vary a lot depending on where the farmers are located in it. It depends a lot on the soil types climate and weather conditions.'cause we're using tier three dynamic soil models, which are highly complex and they take in a lot of inputs in terms of data. And yeah, sometimes yeah, it's, it's, it's difficult to make simplistic assumptions about if you do X then Y happens. Yeah, we've also learned in the process, and this has helped us to coach and train farmers better to help them maximise their impact to their soils and soil carbon sequestration on a annual basis in their situations.

Tom Raftery: 29:03

Looking ahead, how do some of the new EU frameworks, the CSRD SBTI FLAG. CRCF. How do they reshape what's possible for farmer and brand collaboration?

Rhyannon Galea: 29:19

Yeah, they're definitely coming in and putting a whole lot of additional requirements and expectations onto companies at different levels to report. And reporting is one big burden as you as we've discussed. Actually, getting hold of that data and making it reliable is something that is a big challenge. And the other part, when you talk about SBTI FLAG, for example a very large portion of companies these days have a target and those targets generally quite long term. So we're usually talking like a 2050 goal. And many of them are also what we call a net zero goal which means that a company has to reduce its emissions as much as it reasonably can, and that process in and of itself is a big effort. It forces the company to look inside its own operations and look for opportunities to reduce their emissions or their emissions intensity. And then it requires a a neutralization of the residual emissions that are left. And this is usually recommended to be achieved through removals. The distinction here is that removals are actually taking the carbon that's in the air out. And, and using that as a sort of as a credit towards reaching net zero. So, these frameworks really force a few things to happen. They force this supply chain engagement. So what we're seeing now is quite a push between food companies and their suppliers to get more and more data or to set even like minimum requirements like codes of conduct for example. And then they require that data flow that data aggregation and reporting that in a credible way. And not to mention actually figuring out how to reduce those emissions and like what we talked about, there needs to be quite a bit of money on the table to actually bring that about. So these sorts of things are changing. They're sort of bringing sustainability from a voluntary topic towards being something that goes hand in hand with quite a lot of compliance and, and regulation.

Tom Raftery: 31:43

And I guess one big question I have then is if regeneration and regenerative practices are so positive, why are they not widespread at this point?

Rhyannon Galea: 31:59

There was quite some decades ago, this campaign by many, I would say input companies and also a focus on sustainability had a kind of different lens, which was sort of scale, right? So we had a, a sort of system that was being predicated around scale and a dependency on inputs. Because if, yeah, as you apply nitrogen, you get better yields and we industrialised the system to a point that we now see large monocultures over massive areas. We see industrialised holdings of companies, and of owning farms. So, we're also seeing a shift towards larger and larger aggregations of land. We're seeing also age of farmer quite getting older and older and all of this sort of results in a system that has over the long term been quite depleting. And where after decades of these practices now starting to feel the pinch of that degradation that's been happening. And when you layer oncoming climate change with that, you end up in a vulnerable place. So actually looking towards these practices and trying to bring them in to become more commonplace will have a huge impact on the resilience of our food sector moving forward. But it does require a little bit of a step away from monoculture and dependence on inputs that we have been seeing in farming for so long.

Tom Raftery: 33:36

What, for both of you, what keeps you motivated when progress feels slow in this kind of sector?

Kristjan Luha: 33:47

We believe in the, in the long term we will all work this out and this is the right thing to do. It just takes time because it's a, it's a huge complex system. You know, how we we grow process, make and deliver food. It's complicated. There's so many layers and there's so many facets. So it cannot be changed overnight. Everyone we talk to, including the farmers they all believe this is the right thing to do. You know, we do need to farm and, grow our food more sustainably in the long term. They want to be the guardians of their lands and their soils and invest in the soils as well. So, I think we, we are ever optimistic that even as today, these sustainability initiatives, farmer engagement scope three projects are limited in scope and size. This is not going to be like this in the future, and we want to be part of this journey.

Rhyannon Galea: 34:42

Yeah, I might add here as well. I've been in a purpose driven kind of space for a while, and I can tell you that it does get overwhelming and bleak sometimes especially if you engage too much with the news. I believe that the way we're going to solve the climate crisis is through system change. And I think that system change. It needs to be easy for the user. And I think that if we put too much onus on like this personal obligation for everyone to do the right thing, we're not gonna get there. So I believe in making the power that comes out of the wall renewable, for example. And in the same way I believe in making our food system sustainable. And I really find that when I have a, a day that's, difficult. I, I can really connect with that vision and know that, we are in the right place, driving the right thing forward. It's slow. It, needs patience for sure. But I, I, I do think that we can get there and there's a lot of, a lot of intelligent people putting their minds towards this, in this space.

Tom Raftery: 35:49

And what would be your one moonshot idea for 2030? 2040?

Rhyannon Galea: 35:56

Well, Kristjan, you go on.

Kristjan Luha: 36:00

Well we, we would hope by 2030 at least there's an automated, reliable, trustworthy way of collecting primary farm data from any type of farm anywhere in the world. Definitely here in Europe where we are, we're working and this makes everything else a little bit easier. You know, if you, once you're able to measure something, then we can also manage and control our own futures. But you can't manage what you don't measure.

Tom Raftery: 36:30

Sure.

Kristjan Luha: 36:31

So let's start there. But yeah, perhaps there's there's more.

Tom Raftery: 36:35

Okay. Alright, cool. We're coming towards the end of the podcast now, folks. Is there any question I did not ask that you wish I did or any aspect of this we haven't covered that you think it's important for people to be aware of?

Kristjan Luha: 36:50

Yeah, I think one of the work we are also doing is connecting the stakeholders and helping, to build coalitions and alliances throughout the supply chains. And, and I think often companies feel that they're kind of alone in this challenge and they have to figure it out and it's their program. And then, you know, you'll run into budget challenges and all of those things. But in the scope three world you can share the burden and put your shoulders together and, and make that effort together and co-claim the outcomes as well.'cause most of the farms are supplying crops to multiple off-takers. And all of those companies are part of the same supply chain here. So we, we'd be happy to engage other supply chain partners within the networks of the food and beverage companies that, that we talk to. Together we can achieve a lot more.

Tom Raftery: 37:40

Super Rhyannon, anything to add?

Rhyannon Galea: 37:42

Yeah, I think just that setting up these value chain programs is something that doesn't happen overnight. And so I would say that the best thing you can start to do in this space is to start early. And a program an imperfect program is better than one that's far too late. 2030 is just around the corner. It's only, five harvests away. When you put that in perspective you need to start now. We often find that especially if you're wanting to drive emission reductions and removals farmers need to begin that work at the beginning of the next season and which is usually around August. And with all the runup to recruitment and to program set up, and also making sure we approach farmers at times of year when they are available to engage, not during the middle of their harvest when they're all in field. We kind of need to be starting now. So, we recommend that companies, if, if you are, for example, looking towards impact on 2027 crops that you actually be starting now, before the end of 2025 with getting your programs underway. So it, you have to have a long runway.

Tom Raftery: 38:58

Right.

Rhyannon Galea: 38:58

but we do this every day and we connect all the important pieces together to make these programs work. So, we are very happy to help anyone who might be looking to get started.

Tom Raftery: 39:12

Fantastic. Okay, great. Well, with that, if people would like to know more about yourselves or any of the things we discussed in the podcast today, where would you have me direct them?

Kristjan Luha: 39:22

Well just, find eAgronom.com and our contact details will be there. Write to us directly or ping us on, LinkedIn.

Tom Raftery: 39:31

Perfect. Okay, fantastic. Folks, that's been really interesting. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today.

Kristjan Luha: 39:37

Thanks Tom.

Rhyannon Galea: 39:38

You Tom.

Tom Raftery: 39:39

Okay. Thanks everyone for listening to this episode of the Resilient Supply Chain Podcast with me, Tom Raftery. Every week, thousands of senior supply chain and sustainability leaders tune in to learn what's next in resilience, innovation, and transformation. If your organisation wants to reach this influential global audience, the people shaping the future of supply chains, consider partnering with the show. Sponsorship isn't just brand visibility, it's thought leadership, credibility, and direct engagement with the decision makers driving change. To explore how we can spotlight your story or your solutions, connect with me on LinkedIn or drop me an email at Tom at tom Raftery dot com. Let's collaborate to build smarter, more resilient, more sustainable supply chains together. Thanks for tuning in, and I'll catch you all in the next episode.