From standard to transformation

From standard to transformation: agroecology as a concrete path in agricultural companies

In the contemporary debate on agroecology, one of the most controversial elements is the transition from theory to practice. For years, agroecology has been interpreted as a set of shared principles that have been difficult to translate into operational tools. In this context, Sicilian Regional Law No. 21 of 2021 represents a turning point: it not only formally recognizes agroecology, but also represents the first regulatory instrument in Italy capable of triggering a concrete agroecological transition, defining clear and verifiable criteria for farms.
To fully understand the scope of this innovation, it is useful to interpret it through the five-level transition model proposed by Stephen R. Gliessman, who interprets agroecology not as a state to be achieved, but as an evolutionary process that passes through various stages of depth and complexity.
According to this model, farms generally begin by improving resource efficiency and then progressively replace chemical inputs with organic alternatives. However, the decisive transition occurs when the farm ceases to be a simplified production system and becomes a true agroecosystem, founded on biodiversity, ecological interactions, and self-regulation. The subsequent phases further broaden the scope, including economic and social relations, culminating in the transformation of the food system as a whole.
It is precisely within this framework that the Sicilian law reveals its innovative power. The conditions set forth in Article 7—from the exclusive use of inputs permitted in organic farming, to the significant presence of plant biodiversity, to the use of local varieties and the protection of pollinators—do not simply prescribe virtuous behaviors, but implicitly guide farms toward an ecological reconfiguration. In other words, the law does not simply prohibit or permit practices, but sets a course for change.
When viewed through Gliessman’s lens, the law robustly covers the first three phases of the agroecological transition. It supports businesses in the transition from a logic of dependence on external inputs to greater biological autonomy, laying the foundations for more resilient agricultural systems. At the same time, it leaves room—without yet fully regulating them—for more advanced levels, those involving the reorganization of supply chains and the construction of new relationships between producers and consumers.
This characteristic does not represent a limitation, but rather a point of realism. The agroecological transformation cannot be imposed in its entirety by decree, but must emerge progressively through the interaction between businesses, territories, and communities. In this sense, the Sicilian law can be seen as a transitional infrastructure, capable of making feasible what was previously only hoped for.
In this process, a fundamental role is played by the Sicilian Agroecology Coordination, which not only promoted and contributed to the drafting of the law, but continues to operate even after its enactment. The Coordination Committee participated in defining the implementing decrees and, above all, developed operational programs with the explicit objective of supporting companies throughout the entire process of the five Gliessman levels, preventing the transition from stalling at the initial stages.
Among these initiatives, the “Support an Agroecological Company” program represents a particularly significant tool. It introduces a concrete dimension of co-responsibility between producers and citizens, creating the conditions for financial and social support for companies committed to advanced agroecological approaches. In this way, it directly addresses one of the most critical aspects of the transition: the difficulty of sustaining profound changes over time that are not always immediately rewarded in the conventional market.
This is complemented by the Permanent Training in Agroecology program, implemented through periodic courses and other initiatives.
The risk, in fact, is that companies will limit themselves to a formal interpretation of the law, limiting themselves to replacing chemical inputs without profoundly modifying their production organization. This is often what happens in organic conversion processes, when the change remains confined to the technical dimension and fails to translate into a true redesign of the agroecosystem. In these cases, the farm remains vulnerable, dependent on external inputs—even if permitted—and poorly integrated into the local context.
The initiatives promoted by the Coordination Committee work precisely to avoid this outcome, encouraging the transition to the most advanced levels: the construction of direct economic relationships, local roots, and the active participation of communities. In this sense, they represent a practical extension of the law, capable of bridging the gap between regulations and real transformation.
To prevent the transition from stalling, it is necessary to accompany the application of the law with a working method capable of guiding farms along the entire agroecological journey. This method cannot be reduced to a set of requirements, but must be configured as a continuous process of observation, planning, and adaptation.
The first step consists of an in-depth analysis of the farm as an ecological system. This involves analyzing not only crops and yields, but also soil quality, the presence of biodiversity, energy and material flows, and the degree of dependence on external factors. This diagnostic phase allows us to identify areas of fragility and latent potential, often overlooked in conventional production models.
Based on this knowledge, the company can begin a gradual redesign process. The introduction of tree species, crop diversification, the recovery of local varieties, and the creation of pollinator habitats should not be interpreted as isolated obligations, but as components of an integrated strategy. The goal is to activate ecological synergies that reduce the need for external interventions while simultaneously improving production stability.
As these dynamics consolidate, it becomes possible to address a third, often overlooked, dimension of the transition: the relational and economic one. A mature agroecological company does not simply produce sustainably, but also builds relationships with the local community, shortens supply chains, engages with consumers, and participates in local networks. It is at this stage that initiatives like those of the Coordination demonstrate their full utility, creating concrete bridges between production and society.
In conclusion, the Sicilian law on agroecology represents a fundamental step because it demonstrates that the transition can be supported by concrete regulatory instruments. However, its effectiveness depends on companies’ ability to interpret it not as a point of arrival, but as the beginning of a broader journey. Gliessman’s model reminds us that agroecology is a dynamic process, requiring time, learning, and continuous adaptation.
The contribution of the Sicilian Agroecology Coordination highlights how this journey can be actively supported: not only through regulations, but also through tools, networks, and programs capable of supporting companies until the transition is complete. It is in this integration of public policies and collective initiative that agroecology finds the conditions to fully express its transformative potential.
The working method that emerges from this integration of regulations, theory, and practice is, ultimately, simple in its logic but challenging in its application: thoroughly understand your agroecosystem, design interventions that enhance natural processes, and gradually rebuild the economic and social relationships within which the company is embedded. It is along this path that regulatory compliance transforms into true innovation, and that agroecology ceases to be an abstract goal and becomes a daily practice.

Final Chapter – From Transition to Transformation: Practical Actions Along the Five Levels of Agroecology
If the Sicilian law outlines a clear direction for initiating the agroecological transition, the five-level model proposed by Stephen R. Gliessman helps us understand how to fully pursue it. It’s not simply a matter of adopting new techniques, but of accompanying a progressive change that involves production methods, farm organization, and, ultimately, relationships with the local area and society.

First Level
The first level is often the most accessible, because it doesn’t require a radical transformation, but rather a more careful and rational use of resources. At this stage, many farms begin to question where waste and inefficiencies are generated. Water is managed more precisely, thanks to more targeted irrigation systems; soil is no longer considered a mere support but is once again viewed as a living resource, to be understood through analysis and monitoring. Energy and labor are also reorganized, seeking to reduce consumption and improve overall performance. At the local level, this transition is facilitated when shared services, accessible consultancy, and training opportunities exist to help farmers interpret data and make more informed decisions.

Second Level
The second level marks a more visible change: chemical inputs are progressively replaced by organic alternatives. However, this phase, while necessary, can remain superficial if not accompanied by deeper reflection. The farm can continue to operate according to the same logic as before, simply changing the products used. This is where the local context becomes crucial: access to quality compost, suitable seeds, and shared knowledge among farmers can make the difference between a simple technical conversion and the beginning of a true agroecological journey.

Third Level
The third level represents the heart of the transformation. It is no longer a matter of correcting the existing system, but of rethinking it. The farm begins to be designed as an ecosystem, in which each element performs multiple functions and contributes to the overall balance. Crops are diversified, crop rotations become more complex, trees, hedges, and spaces dedicated to biodiversity appear. Beneficial insects, pollinators, and soil fertility are no longer external factors to be managed, but active components of the production system. In this transition, the landscape also changes, and with it the role of farms, which are no longer isolated units but parts of a larger ecological network. When multiple farms act in a coordinated manner, the landscape itself becomes more resilient.

Fourth Level
At this point, the transition opens up to an often overlooked dimension: that of economic and social relations. The fourth level concerns the reconnection between producers and consumers. Farms begin to seek forms of sales that bridge distances, not only geographically but also culturally. Direct sales, local markets, and purchasing groups become spaces where the value of food is redefined. It’s not just about price, but about trust, transparency, and mutual understanding. At the same time, collective experiences that support these models are growing within communities: networks of informed consumers, educational initiatives, and local policies that favor short supply chains. At this stage, agroecology ceases to be an exclusively agricultural issue and becomes a social reality.

Fifth Level
The fifth level takes this evolution to its broader consequences. Here, agroecology is no longer just a practice adopted by individual companies or communities, but a principle that guides the entire food system. Production choices are intertwined with political, economic, and cultural ones. Local institutions can play a decisive role, for example by redirecting public procurement toward agroecological production or supporting forms of solidarity economy. Companies, for their part, become active participants in this change, participating in networks, contributing to the definition of new rules, and collaborating with other local stakeholders. It is at this stage that agroecology fully expresses its transformative nature, impacting not only how food is produced, but how society organizes and distributes it.

Naturally, these levels do not follow one another in a rigid manner. In reality, companies advance by trial and error, combining different elements and adapting them to their context. It is precisely this dynamic nature that makes the agroecological process alive and concrete. However, it remains essential to avoid a recurring risk: that of stopping at the initial stages, where change is simplest but also least impactful.
In this sense, the Sicilian law can be seen as a solid starting point, capable of making the initial stages of the transition accessible. But its potential is fully realized only when accompanied by widespread commitment, involving companies, communities, and institutions in a shared journey.
Translating agroecology into practice therefore means going beyond the substitution of inputs and achieving true ecological planning; it means overcoming corporate isolation to build interconnected territorial systems; it means, finally, transforming the market into a space for relationships. It is along this path that the law ceases to be a constraint and becomes a lever for real change, capable of profoundly impacting the ways of producing, consuming, and experiencing the territory.

Guido Bissanti