Contradictions of Rural Development, Agri-Environmental Policy, Agroecological Transitions and Alternative Visions for Agriculture and Food Security in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Regions in Sweden and Italy

Abstract

Ensuring local and sustainable food security is gaining an important role in rural development strategies at national and regional scales in Europe. This relies to an important degree upon the implementation of new, or old, agri-environmental policy, namely, policies at the intersection of agriculture and the environment. Yet, the incorporation of agri-environmental policy in rural development strategies at the regional level creates, and often accelerates, contradictions between existing rural development paths and the structural changes needed to achieve both environmental objectives and economically viable agricultural development. Within this context, agroecological transitions are framed as key for transformations of national food systems. However, understanding the prospects and barriers for agroecological transitions and food security at the regional level requires a much deeper understanding of how national and international food policies shape and are shaped by long political economic trajectories of rural development with competing interests. In this paper, we explore these contradictions of rural development in Europe by comparatively analyzing the political nature of potential agroecological transitions in Europe and how these transitions interact with agri-environmental policies and rural development strategies at the regional level.

1. Introduction

The implementation of agri-environmental policy, namely, policies at the intersection of agriculture and the environment [1], in rural development strategies at the regional level creates, and often accelerates, contradictions between existing rural development paths and the structural changes needed to achieve both environmental objectives and economically viable and ecological agricultural development regionally. This can be seen in the EU‘s recent policies and strategies that aim at addressing, in a combined manner, environmental, agricultural and food systems challenges. As analyzed in relation to implementation of the Farm to Fork Strategy and the European Green Deal, the pre-existence of different and contradictory political positions within national states leads to differences between the stated goals of such policies and their implementation [2]. Furthermore, although the Common Agriculture Policy for 2023–2027 focused on seeking and identifying synergies between the environmental, social, and economic goals of agriculture and new instruments to achieve greater sustainability, critics have argued that alternative farming approaches tend to be incorporated as technical “tools” in policies that continue to favor a techno-scientific approach to sustainability [3].

Within this context, new visions for agriculture are emerging and being discussed at both policy and everyday farming levels. A salient alternative policy option for agriculture is represented by new research and practice on agroecology, which is today an area of intense discussion concerning the very meaning of agroecology in European contexts. Also, the difference between the specific agricultural practices guided by agroecology in comparison to alternatives such as, for example, regenerative agriculture is a matter of ongoing discussion [4].

In this context, agroecological transitions are framed as key for transformations of national food systems, and agroecology is therefore gaining greater policy attention [5]. This can be seen in the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture (2024) on how to enhance sustainable farming practices [6]. A recent study published by the European Commission identified 49 agroecological practices proposed as policy options in three key documents from the EU, including documents proposing a list of potential agricultural practices that could be supported by EU eco-schemes and practices related to organic farming [7]. This shows that at least in terms of a general practical re-orientation of agriculture in the EU, agroecology is today touted as a policy option for agriculture and food systems. An earlier study of France, Germany and the UK also highlights this by comparing the differences in agroecology implementation in policy and how different levels of implementation create different tensions [8]. Incentive-based instruments, prevalent within the framework of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, promote agroecology through agri-environmental schemes, biodiversity strategies, and soil conservation programs. However, in their implementation at the national level, these approaches often lack coercive capacity and remain sectoral, often embedded within pre-existing environmental or agricultural policy agendas and thus reinforcing concerns regarding the risk of agroecology also being absorbed into technocratic sustainability agendas without systemic and participatory impact that could enable deeper transformations [9,10]. This may limit the transformative potential of agroecology, reducing its implementation to a set of technical practices compatible with existing institutional arrangements [11].

Therefore, we argue, understanding the prospects and barriers for the policy implementation of new visions for agriculture guided by agroecology and food security at the regional level requires a much deeper understanding of how national food policies shape and are shaped by long political economic trajectories of rural development, often making these new strategies for rural development a contradictory process with competing interests trying to define the terms of rural development. At the same time, the discussion on food preparedness due to recent geopolitical events, such as the wars in Ukraine and Iran, and the post-COVID-19 pandemic context is changing the terms of food security.

This converges with longstanding questions concerning the interplay between national strategies for rural development and regional policy, in the context of profound transformations of agriculture and food provision, which have traditionally been considered drivers of rural development. Neoliberal globalization, as several authors have argued [12], has had a pervasive influence in rural areas. On the one hand, globalization means a global-market orientation in food security, as cheaper food is imported to some regional areas while in other regions, the export of food is seen as a possibility for agricultural development. On the other hand, and largely influenced by economic changes in the role of agriculture in strategies for rural development in Europe, new views for rural development have decentered it from agriculture as the primary focus. Thus, approaches that incorporate other rural economic activities into rural development have been proposed at the conceptual and policy levels. The OECD, for example, by proposing a new rural paradigm, shifted focus from agriculture and farms toward multi-actors and competitiveness in rural areas at large [13]. In addition, incorporating environmental concerns into rural development has motivated both policy and academic research. The term integrated rural development, for example, has been complemented to add an environmental element to its framing, thus becoming, in some literature, a matter of sustainable integrated rural policy [14].

The above creates a problematic nexus between the implementation of agri-environmental policy and alternative strategies for repositioning agriculture in rural development regionally. In this paper, we analyze regional cases in Italy and Sweden that are relevant for an empirical and theoretical understanding of the aforementioned problematic nexus around alternatives for rural development and agriculture in Europe. While both countries are part of the EU, their agricultural and rural development strategies both converge and differ in how they respond to different challenges of agriculture in relation to national and regional rural development strategies. This can be seen in the terms by which the two countries have defined their goals and strategies under the Common Agriculture Policy (henceforth CAP) strategic plan for the period 2023–2027.

Table 1. Main goals and strategies of Sweden and Italy within the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy strategic plan for the period 2023–2027, including approach to organic farming.

Goals and strategy of the CAP strategic plan of Sweden	Goals and strategy of the CAP strategic plan of Italy
Sweden’s strategy aims to increase the productivity, viability and competitiveness of the agricultural sector while protecting animal welfare and seeking increased ambition in environmental and climate standards. Increasing food production is another priority. The strategy also aims to contribute to the development of Sweden’s rural areas, to help ensure that these are attractive places to live and work in.	The Italian CAP Plan aims at enhancing the competitiveness and sustainability of the country’s diversified agriculture and rural areas. Its strategy addresses a wide scope of needs from the different territories. This includes an adequate income for farmers, protecting them from adverse climatic events, reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment, tackling labour exploitation and improving the quality of life in rural areas. While the former regional Rural Development Programmes have converged into a single national CAP Strategic Plan, the Regions will continue to play a key role in the implementation of rural development interventions.
Organic farming as part of a greener CAP in Sweden	Organic farming as part of a greener CAP in Italy
[…] farmers can receive additional funding if they respect certain agronomic rules, which will reduce nutrient leakage from arable land and increase carbon storage in the soil. For the same purpose, almost 14% (over 410,000 hectares) of the total utilized agricultural land will receive support to develop organic farming, which will contribute to the reduced use of pesticides, improved water and soil quality, and carbon sequestration.	[…] Italy will allocate more than EUR 2 billion to organic farming, as it is considered a production technique contributing to the targets of the European Green Deal. Italy aims to increase its area under organic farming to 25% of the agricultural land by 2027.

below presents a summary of these two approaches in the official terms of the two countries [15,16], highlighting first the two countries’ main goals and strategy, and secondly, how organic farming is conceived by the governments of Sweden and Italy as part of a greener CAP.

While the CAP is adopted nationally, there exists a substantial difference in implementation at regional levels. Thus, a regional-level analysis within and between Sweden and Italy allows a deeper understanding of the practical and policy challenges of agricultural and food systems transformation as drivers of rural development and the contradictions thereby. Having these national backgrounds as starting points for our comparative analysis, this paper aims to more deeply analyze the contradictions between agri-environmental policy and ecological/organic strategies for repositioning agriculture in rural development in Sweden and Italy. In order to do so, we address the following question: how do the current policy contradictions of rural development interplay with agroecological transitions for sustainable agriculture and food security in regional areas of Sweden and Italy?

To empirically answer this question, we focus on selected regions of Sweden and Italy and base our analysis on the local challenges to sustaining local agriculture and implementing changes towards ecological farming and food systems. Within this context, a key issue that emerges in our analysis is the role of market relations as a key political challenge for regional agriculture and food systems. To analytically address this, we combine food regime analysis and political agroecology to unpack the political and economic nature of rural development alternatives in the context of new visions for agriculture and rural development in Europe at the regional level.

Theoretically, we draw from key literature on food regimes and political agroecology to analyze the political dimensions of the corporate food regime at regional levels, with a focus on the interplay between agri-environmental policy and alternative visions for agriculture and food security in regions of Sweden and Italy. Methodologically, the paper is based on qualitative case study research, for which we have (1) conducted qualitative interviews, (2) organized, documented and analyzed workshops with local actors, (3) conducted participant observations on farms, and (4) critically analyzed national and regional policy documents. In addition, given the fact that Sweden and Italy are members of the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), we have reviewed and analyzed relevant EU and OECD documents addressing agriculture and rural development. This paper is part of a larger 4-year project funded by the Swedish research council for sustainable development (FORMAS) with a focus on sustainable food security in times of crisis in Sweden, Italy and Chile.

Following this introduction, the paper is structured in five additional sections. Section 2 presents and explains the theory and conceptual framing guiding the analysis. Section 3 details the methodological approach for the research. Section 4 presents the case studies and the empirical results. Section 5 offers a comparative analysis and discussion of our findings. Section 6 highlights the conclusions.

2. Theory and Conceptual Framing

In the following section, we present our theoretical and conceptual framework to comparatively approach contradictions in rural development, the role of agri-environmental policy and the potential for agroecological transitions thereby. We draw from food regime analysis and political agroecology for the analysis of challenges for agriculture and food security as well as how alternatives emerge in regions of Sweden and Italy.

2.1. Rural Development and the Contradiction of Agri-Environmental Policy

The very meaning of rural development has long been a matter of debate globally. Given the specific political circumstances and socio-political contexts of agriculture, where ideas of rural development have been brought into policy and practice, rural development is a deeply political and interest-guided process. Van der Ploeg et al. [17] have argued that rural development is born as an endogenous process out of the interests, struggles and contradictions that emerge in a multi-level process involving global interrelations between agriculture and society [18,19]. In rural development policy, new development models for agriculture interplay with profound changes at the level of the individual farm household, at the level of the countryside and its (economic) actors, and at the level of policies and institutions. Rather than being limited to its productivist function, agriculture becomes multifunctional and further territorially embedded, contributing not only to food production but also to environmental management, cultural reproduction, and local economic development.

However, in capitalist societies, rural development needs to be analyzed also in relation to the wider process of capital accumulation and capitalist development. Thus, analytically, rural development in capitalist societies cannot be isolated from the ambiguities, tensions and contradictions that are intrinsic to all processes of capitalist development [20]. In this setting, rural development strategies are an inherently political process where decisions about the specific content of these strategies show efforts to articulate political economic interests of different actors. In this regard, it is also important to distinguish between contradictions within and between social and political structures [21]. In our analysis, we bear in mind this distinction to understand contradictions within the dominant models of agriculture and rural development and the contradictions between these models and alternative rural development alternatives that incorporate more ecological forms of agriculture. In this regard, we argue, the contradictions of rural development concern both the materiality of the practices to enact particular rural development strategies and the conceptual terms following those strategies. Thus, as we explain below, analyzing agri-environmental policy helps to unpack contradictions of rural development, which we explore from the perspectives of food regime analysis and political agroecology to unpack the politics of rural development both as macro- and micro-politics.

Agri-environmental policy is an area where the contradictions of rural development can be prominently observed. Defined as policy at the intersection of agriculture and the environment [1], agri-environmental policy is today more markedly a central policy process within rural development strategies. Yet, and given the nature of such policies, this often implies contradictions between existing rural development paths and the structural changes needed to achieve both environmental objectives and economically viable agricultural development at the regional level. In this regard, while agri-environmental policy adds to the contradictory nature of rural development, it is also a political tool that aims at managing the contradictions within the politics of rural development. Understanding this dual role of agri-environmental policy in rural development helps to articulate a critical policy analysis in a way that connects our conceptual framing to our methodology presented below. As shown in the literature that has previously analyzed agri-environmental policy, this particular form of policy has historically shown the power of the agricultural sector in either defining the content of these policies [22] or retarding its adoption or implementation [23]. However, in recent policy-oriented literature, there is a tendency to focus on the implementation process of agri-environmental policy rather than examining the political process underpinning these policies [24]. In contrast, food regime analysis and political agroecology, we argue, offer useful conceptual tools to more deeply and critically analyze the contradictions arising from the interplay between agri-environmental policy and rural development strategies.

2.2. Food Regime Analysis and Political Agroecology

As defined by Friedmann, a food regime is a “rule-governed structure of the production and consumption of food” [25]. McMichael [26] characterizes a ‘corporate food regime’ by “the global de-regulation of financial relations, calibrating monetary value by credit (rather than labor) relations […] the corporatization of agriculture and agro-exports, and a world-scale casualization of labor” (p. 271). Food regime analysis brings food politics to the center of capitalist development and in doing so, it serves us to analytically address rural development and its contradictions. In more particular terms, and because of the socio-economic nature of rural development strategies, there are institutional and political-economic contradictions that are intrinsic to the attempts to find a fix to the agrarian crisis by means of rural development aligned with the purpose of capital accumulation at both local and international levels [27]. This brings to the core of the analysis the contradictions of rural development at the regional level.

Food regime analysis is not only about identifying the processes through which a corporate food regime materializes and develops on a global and national scale. An important aspect of food regime analysis is to identify movements that oppose the interests of corporations in agriculture and food production. One of the most prominent alternatives to the corporate food regime is agroecology, which relates to transformative processes that emerge from the interaction of scientific knowledge and its application for sustainable agriculture as a movement aimed at reshaping food systems. Especially important in this context is the analysis of agroecological transitions.

Agroecological transitions have been defined as the progressive shift from conventional, industrial agricultural systems toward more sustainable, ecological, and socially just food systems grounded in ecological and social principles [28,29,30,31]. Recently, the interest in agroecology in Europe has motivated both policy and research responses (see, e.g., the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture 2024). New funding for research in agroecology has been steered from the EU (see, e.g., the Agroecology Partnership 1–3 co-funded calls, Agroecology Partnership 2026a, 2026b) [32,33]. Yet, and as the earlier experience within agroecology shows, the prospects of agroecology need to be understood in relation to the political processes enabling agroecology to be implemented and to transform agriculture and food production. In this regard, political agroecology brings insights from political ecology to interrogate power and political relations in environmental change and, more specifically, in the dynamics of agrarian change. To this, political agroecology adds a normative goal: achieving agrarian sustainability [34]. Agroecology is thus understood not only as a set of farming practices, but as a project oriented towards the reconfiguration of food systems, the re-embedding of production in territories, and the construction of alternative institutional and governance arrangements. In this sense, agroecological practices are also conceived as political interventions that challenge dominant models of sustainability and agriculture.

A key analytical premise in both food regime analysis and political agroecology is to make visible the political nature of capitalist markets in the context of new visions for agriculture and rural development. This analytical starting point and distinction, that to an important degree draws from past critiques of capitalism such as those developed by Marx [35], Luxemburg [36] and Polanyi [37], is important in this paper for two main reasons. First, as we will see in the empirical material below, markets are often identified as the main barriers to implementing alternative farming and food production practices. But at the same time, we observe that a common pattern in the emergence of alternative agricultural practices and visions of rural development is centered around the creation of new markets or the consolidation of existing markets that can enable the maintenance of these alternative agricultures.

In line with food regime analysis, the logic of our qualitative comparative approach draws from McMichael’s proposal for incorporated comparison [38,39]. In doing so, our comparison looks at agriculture and rural development as processes where local transformations cannot be separated from global processes, but neither are these local processes fully defined by global dynamics. In this regard, analyzing rural development in different regional contexts concerns an in-depth understanding of how contexts, actors, and processes around rural development and agricultural transformations are intertwined across time and space, rather than approaching these regional contexts in terms of a collection of variables and data to be compared.

To sum up, our comparative analytical approach links the current contradictions in rural development in Europe to the implementation of agri-environmental policies in the context of a corporate food regime and the political challenges to capitalist agriculture, which, drawing from political agroecology, we conceive in terms of agroecological transitions. Thus, our analysis will be centered on the intersection of the corporate food regime and the political prospects of agroecological transitions at the regional level. This framing will serve us to more deeply and structurally analyze new visions for agriculture and food production emerging amidst the contradictions in capitalist rural development in Sweden and Italy, and how this in turn engenders alternative views on the meaning of rural development and the barriers thereby. Following this section, and based on the results from the methods explained below in Section 3, we will organize our empirical analysis and discussion under three topics: (1) actors’ perspectives on negative trends and effects of agriculture in the two regions, (2) local alternatives and solutions toward sustainability, and (3) critical socio-ecological issues that create challenges for implementing more sustainable agricultural alternatives in practice.

3. Methodology and Methods

Our analysis is based on research and fieldwork in two regions of Sweden, namely, Uppsala and West Bothnia (in Swedish: Västerbotten), and in the region of Sicily in Italy. Methodologically, the research was designed as a qualitative case study using a mixed-methods approach. The use of different methods was aimed at gaining a fuller and deeper understanding of our cases through methodological triangulation. For the case of Sweden, we analyze empirical material from research in Uppsala and West Bothnia to also highlight some general national issues concerning the research question addressed in the paper. The analysis of both the Italian and Swedish cases aims at advancing a comparative approach to the contradictions of rural development unfolding in the European context and its specific dynamics concerning agri-environmental policy and agriculture.

The selection of the regions in Sweden and Italy was based on the following criteria. First, we chose regions where there was implementation of regional policies aimed at increasing organic/ecological and agroecological production, and where these efforts ran in parallel with national food policies. In the specific case of Sicily, the regional law for agroecology distinguishes this region from other regions in Italy. Moreover, Sicily is Italy’s leading region in organic farming, ranking first in terms of organically cultivated area and among the leading regions in the number of certified organic operators. However, domestic consumption of organic products remains comparatively low, revealing a significant spatial disconnection between production and consumption patterns within the country. In the case of Uppsala and West Bothnia, the regional food policies address issues of organic and ecological production without relying on a defined vision for agroecology, which creates a contrast with the case of Sicily. A second criterion was the existence of organized organic and agroecological farmers, which could offer contrasting views concerning the micro-level rural development context where ecological and agroecological alternatives for agriculture are implemented. A third criterion is that Italy is an important exporter of food to Sweden, and thus, exploring regions in the two countries offers an interesting opportunity to better understand and compare agriculture and rural development in settings linked for international trade relations. Finally, there is a criterion of convenience: the researched regions are close to the universities where the research teams are based. This firstly allowed access to respondents and secondly, the effective organization of workshops and activities with regional actors. The selected regions also offered favorable conditions for sustained engagement with local stakeholders throughout the research process. This enabled the organization of workshops and participatory activities, and it was consistent with the action-research orientation of the project, which seeks to foster ongoing collaboration with regional actors beyond the scope of the present study.

The methods are specified below.

3.1. Critical Policy Analysis

For the critical analysis of the agri-environmental policies and rural development strategies, and in line with our conceptual framing, we draw on historical materialist policy analysis (HMPA). This type of critical policy analysis has been defined as follows: “The aim of HMPA is to analyze how specific policies are formulated against the background of essentially competing and contradictory interests of different social forces and how, if at all, they contribute to social reproduction and the regulation of contradictory social relations and crisis tendencies” [40]. As this explanation of HMPA shows, the contradictory interests of different social forces in a given context are a key focus for the analysis. For analytical purposes, we qualify our approach to social forces by focusing on a selection of key actors that are acting at the regional level, representing the voices of actors that constitute and articulate regional social forces. We conceive these forces as being “located in the wider structure of the social relations of production, which do not determine but shape their interests and identity” [41]. Thus, we explore questions of interest by analyzing interviews and policies. In doing so, and drawing from previous studies using HMPA to analyze cases of agriculture and sustainability in the EU, we will analyze our empirical reconstructions of the cases with a focus on a three-stage process including contexts, actors and process analysis [2].

3.2. Qualitative Interviews

We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews in Sweden and 20 in Italy. We organized the interviews according to purposive sampling and also used the snowball technique to enrich the sampling. We have anonymized the respondents with the codes indicated as follows: In Sweden, we conducted nine interviews with farmers (UF), one civil servant from a county board (UCB) and one civil servant from a municipality (UM) in Uppsala and seven farmers (WBF), one civil servant from the county board (WBCB) and two civil servants from a municipality (WBM) in West Bothnia (see

Table A1. Interviews in Sweden.

Respondent	Code for Identification
Farmer/Farm 1 Uppsala	UF#1
Farmer/Farm 2 Uppsala	UF#2
Farmer/Farm 3 Uppsala	UF#3
Farmer/Farm 4 Uppsala	UF#4
Farmer/Farm 5 Uppsala	UF#5
Farmer/Farm 6 Uppsala	UF#6
Farmer/Farm 7 Uppsala	UF#7
Farmer/Farm 8 Uppsala	UF#8
Farmer/Farm 9 Uppsala	UF#9
Civil servant, Uppsala County Board	UCB#1
Civil servant, Uppsala Municipality	UM#1
Farmer/Farm 1 West Bothnia	WBF#1
Farmer/Farm 2 West Bothnia	WBF#2
Farmer/Farm 3 West Bothnia	WBF#3
Farmer/Farm 4 West Bothnia	WBF#4
Farmer/Farm 5 West Bothnia	WBF#5
Farmer/Farm 6 West Bothnia	WBF#6
Farmer/Farm 7 West Bothnia	WBF#7
Civil servant, West Bothnia County Board	WBCB#1
Civil servant 1, West Bothnia Municipality	WBM#1
Civil servant 2, West Bothnia Municipality	WBM#2

in Appendix A). In Italy, we conducted interviews with seven farmers (SF), one entrepreneur (SE), three representatives from biodistricts (SBD), one representative from the Sicily agroecology coordination (SA), three representatives from associations (SA), three representatives from cooperatives (SC), one civil servant from a municipality (SM) and one academic researcher (SU) (see

Table A2. Interviews in Italy.

Respondent	Code for Identification
Farmer/Farm 1	SF#1
Farmer/Farm 2	SF#2
Farmer/Farm 3	SF#3
Farmer/Farm 4	SF#4
Farmer/Farm 5	SF#5
Farmer/Farm 6	SF#6
Farmer/Farm 7	SF#7
Entrepreneur	SE#1
Biodistrict Representative, Enna	SBD#1
Biodistrict Representative, Agrigento	SBD#2
Biodistrict Representative, Valle del Simeto, Catania	SBD#3
Biodistrict Representative, Valle degli Elimi, Trapani	SBD#4
Sicily Agroecology Coordination Representative	SA#1
Association 1 Representative	SA#2
Association 2 Representative	SA#3
Civil servant, Municipality of Aidone	SM#1
Academic Researcher, University of Palermo	SU#1
Cooperative 1 Representative	SC#1
Cooperative 2 Representative	SC#2
Consortium 1 Representative	SC#3

in Appendix A).

The interviews were semi-structured, and we used a common, but flexible, interview guide methodologically designed for the purposes of comparative analysis focused on the aims of the research project of which this paper forms a part. Thus, questions to farmers and rural development actors participating in the research, along with the themes proposed and discussed in the project’s seminars and workshops (see more on seminars and workshops below), aimed to gain general information about the research participants’ agricultural activities, their views on challenges for agriculture in the study areas, the possibilities for and obstacles to implementing organic/ecological or agroecological practices, and the interplays between agriculture and environmental policy. Questions also addressed their views of the current socioeconomic and political situation of agriculture and the problems related to sustainability and rural development. We explicitly included open-ended questions to allow interviewees to present their views on the contexts of farming and production, and on the future of agricultural and rural development in their areas. Follow-up questions allowed us to clarify the views of the interviewees and also gain more in-depth qualitative data for the purposes of our research.

All the interviews were transcribed, and excerpts from the transcribed interviews were analyzed in terms of thematic analysis focused on the following themes: views on agriculture and development in the rural areas where we carried out the research, and perspectives on the challenges arising from the interplays between sustainability and agriculture goals.

This procedure was followed by a more focused reading and interpretation of the interviews to analyze key policy issues. Data collection and analysis were informed by the knowledge acquired over the course of the research. Thus, in both countries, specific topics and issues related to our research question arose. Each case was first analyzed separately. Second, we had research meetings to jointly analyze the interviews and themes emerging from the cases in a comparative way.

3.3. Observations

We conducted in-depth observations on five farms in Sweden and five farms in Italy to obtain deeper knowledge and understanding of the material contexts in which the research participants realize their everyday agricultural activities and rural relations thereby.

3.4. Workshops and Seminars

Finally, we analyzed outcomes of workshops and seminars with actors organized in the context of the wider research project of which this analysis forms a part. As seen in

Table 2. Workshops/seminars in Sweden and Italy.

Sweden	Italy
January 2026: Seminar on food security in Umeå, Attended by 13 people, including civil servants, agriculture consultants, 5 farmers and researchers.	May 2025: Seminar on agroecology and biodistricts: skills and tools to support those who cultivate the future. Attended by 40 people, including 18 farmers, 1 municipality staff member, 3 academic researchers, 3 biodistrict representatives, 5 association representatives.
May, 2025: local conference on water Attended by 30 people, including civil servants at public authorities, water actors, farmers, civil society organizations and researchers.	April 2025: Biodistrict Focus Group: agroecological transformations in response to crises for a sustainable future. Attended by 13 people, including 8 farmers, 1 biodistrict president, 2 association representatives, 2 academic researchers.
February, 2025: Study visit and conference on comparative agroecology in Alnarp, Sweden. Attended by 14 international researchers in agroecology, and with the participation of agroecology practitioners in southern Sweden.	March 2025: Seminar on the Regional Law on Agroecology. Attended by 25 people, including 5 academic researchers, 2 Sicilian agroecology coordination representatives, 2 agronomists, 3 agriculture association representatives, 10 university students and 5 farmers.
January, 2025: Seminar on food security in Uppsala. Attended by 15 people, including 3 farmers, 1 civil servant for a rural municipality and 1 civil servant on the county administrative board.	September 2024: Workshop on agriculture and livestock production. Attended by 30 persons, including 5 academic researchers, 6 cooperative representatives, 2 agronomists, 13 farmers, 4 biodistrict representatives.
June, 2024: Academic workshops on Sustainable Water Use, Food Security and Transformative Climate Policy in Uppsala. Attended by 23 researchers, including visits to farms and participating in discussions in the field with farmers, and the chairman of a regional water association that works with farmers and municipalities.	June 2024: Workshop on water management and keyline design. Attended by 30 people, including 5 academic researchers, 6 cooperative representatives, 2 agronomists, 13 farmers, 4 biodistrict representatives.

below, we draw from empirical insights obtained from five workshops/seminars in Sweden and five similar activities in Italy.

In Section 4 below, we present the case studies and the results. We start with the cases in Sweden and follow with the case of Sicily in Italy. Given the fact that the case of Sicily shows a more developed approach to agroecology, this case is presented with more details, and thus through a longer presentation, and this is done with the aim of presenting key empirical issues for understanding the regional implementation of agroecology in policy and practice.

4. Case Studies and Results

4.1. National and Regional Policies for Food and Agriculture in Sweden and Italy

A first observation regarding food and agriculture policy in both countries is that recently, and closely linked with the post-pandemic context and ongoing geopolitical conflicts, there has been active policy-making aimed at addressing new political demands for national and regional agriculture and food systems.

Table 3. Key elements of The Swedish Food Strategy [43,44], the regional planning for food security in Uppsala Region in Sweden [45], the regional food strategy of West Bothnia Region in Sweden [46], the Italian national strategy for agriculture [47] and Regional law for agroecology in Sicily 21/21 [48]. Authors’ own elaboration.

	The Swedish Food Strategy	Regional Planning for Food Security in Uppsala	Regional Strategy of West Bothnia Region	Italian National Strategy for Agriculture	Regional Law for Agroecology in Sicily 21/21
Origin and motivation	2016/7: Swedish food strategy, updated 2025 with The Food Strategy 2.0, focusing on innovation and competitiveness.	Regional implementation of the national Food Strategy adopted in 2021 with the aim of contributing to sustainable food production in Uppsala County.	More food in West Bothnia, 2021–2030. Focusing on implementation at the regional and local level. Regional implementation of the national Food Strategy, also contributing to the regional development strategy.	2023–2027: National Strategic Plan (NSP) under CAP reform; aligned with EU Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy. Complemented by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR).	2021: Regional Law n. 21 “Provisions on agroecology, biodiversity protection and Sicilian agricultural products and technological innovation”.
Key objectives and policy focus	Increase domestic food production; strengthen competitiveness; ensure environmental sustainability; improve resilience and food security.	(a) Strengthening the entire value chain from food production to consumption (b) Creating better conditions for business development through simplified rules and regulations. (c) Addressing competence supply and workforce challenges by making the food sector more attractive to young people and new groups. (d) Promoting sustainable food consumption through informed consumer choices and increased use of regionally produced foods through public procurement.	Increasing demand and local sustainable food production regionally, as well as contributing to globally sustainable food security by producing more of their own food. Specific objectives for food production include, for example: (1) increasing the regional level of self sufficiency in fodder and profitable production of cereals and oilseeds for human consumption, (2) increased milk production, (3) increased self-sufficiency in meat from lamb, cattle and pigs.	(a) Ecological transition of agriculture, food and forestry sectors (b) Adoption of agroecological practices (c) Expansion of organic farming (d) Animal welfare improvement (e) Risk management tools for climate shocks (f) Strengthening supply chains and competitiveness (g) Support for youth and innovation (h) Introduction of social conditionality (from 2023)	(a) Protection of health, environment, biodiversity and ecosystems (b) Combating desertification, hydrogeological risks and fires (c) Protection of Sicilian products and local supply chains (d) Promotion of agro-sylvo-pastoral systems based on agroecological principles (e) Strengthening control systems in the agri-food sector.
Conceptualization of agroecology	Not explicitly central; sustainability framed within increased production and competitiveness.	Agroecology not explicitly addressed	Agroecology not explicitly addressed	Agroecology included mainly as part of environmental sustainability measures within CAP instruments; not a fully transformative paradigm.	Agroecology explicitly defined (Art. 2) as the application of ecological principles to agriculture, livestock and forestry; strong normative and operational definition.
Key instruments and measures	Policy coordination across sectors; incentives for innovation and production.	A steering group will carry out joint activities and promote synergies that contribute to the strategy.	Authorities and interest organizations work on a broad level by supporting development, coordinating stakeholders, making decisions, and creating conditions for sustainable growth through education, funding, governance, and planning	- CAP eco-schemes and rural development measures - Support for organic farming (Law 23/2022) - Recognition of organic districts (biodistretti) - PNRR investments in sustainable agriculture and circular economy - Logistics, mechanization (i.e., digitalization), renewable energy in agri-food chains	- Certification of agroecological farms - Biodiversity requirements (e.g., % of native species, local breeds, pollinators) - Support for biodistricts - Training, education and awareness programs - Incentives for water saving, circular systems, renewable energy, short supply chains
Implementation	Regions developed action plans for implementation. National coordination with sectoral agencies; evolving toward updated strategy (v.2).	Coordinated by the county administrative board of Uppsala	Several action plans are formed with stakeholders.	Strong regional role: implementation of agro-climatic-environmental measures delegated to regions. NSP operationalized through CAP instruments.	Regional implementation led by the Sicilian government; detailed criteria defined by Decree D.D.G. n. 273/2025 for recognition of agroecological farms and access to funding.
Main actors included in the policy	National government; agricultural sector; industry stakeholders.	County administrative board; municipalities; local farmers and producer associations; NGOs., universities	County administrative board; municipalities; local farmer and producer associations; NGOs, universities	- Ministry of Agriculture (MASAF) - Regions - Agricultural and agribusiness associations - Limited involvement of environmental NGOs	- Sicilian Regional Government - Agroecology networks (e.g., Coordinamento Agroecologia Sicilia) - Agronomists and technical bodies - Local producers and associations
Critical issues	Tension between productivity and sustainability goals. Multiple market factors influencing agricultural development and food.	Limited resources for full implementation; dependency on coordination between municipalities and regional authorities.		- Criticism from EU Commission: insufficient ambition toward Green Deal targets - Strong focus on income support for large farms - Limited transformative impact of agroecological measures - Weak internal convergence of payments.	- Strong territorial and environmental motivation. - High ambition but complex implementation - Administrative burden for farmers - Need for effective certification and monitoring systems.

below provides a comparative overview of selected policy frameworks addressing agriculture and food system sustainability at different governance levels, focusing on Sweden and Italy, as well as the Uppsala, West Bothnia and Sicily regions within these two countries. The table highlights their origins, objectives, conceptualizations of agroecology, implementation mechanisms, and key actors involved. The Swedish national strategy emphasizes food security, productivity, and environmental sustainability, and it has also envisioned increasing food exports. The Uppsala regional food plan focuses on sustainable and competitive food production and defines targets for more ecological food production at the regional level. The West Bothnia regional food plan stresses the local needs of agriculture in Northern Sweden and also aims at increased self-sufficiency in key agricultural products, such as fodder. Italy’s national policies integrate agroecological principles within CAP instruments and the Recovery and Resilience Plan, although with a stronger focus on economic sustainability. Digitalization is recognized as a key enabler of food security and sustainability. Within the National Strategic Plan (NSP) under the CAP and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), digital tools are promoted to modernize the agri-food sector, improve supply chain traceability, support precision agriculture, enhance risk management, and facilitate market access for producers [42]. Sicily represents a more explicit and operationalized approach to agroecology, with legally defined criteria, certification systems, and incentives for biodiversity, renewable energy, and local production networks.

This comparative perspective, presented in Table 3 below, illustrates the diversity of approaches to sustainable food systems, from top-down national strategies to regionally tailored, agroecology-driven interventions.

4.2. The Case of Sweden

The Uppsala region is located in the central part of Sweden and is known for its fertile plains and rich agricultural traditions, including important production of cereals. Agricultural opportunities in the region are extensive: cereal production and semi-natural grasslands, the existence of important clusters for research and development (R&D) in agriculture and closeness to major domestic markets, e.g., Sweden’s capital Stockholm. Important challenges for the future development of agriculture are the limited value addition in food products, few larger enterprises, logistical bottlenecks, an ageing farming population, and low production volumes. Though the Uppsala region makes up 4% of the Swedish population, in almost all foods, the region is producing less than 4% of the total national production volume [49]. The only exceptions are grains and rapeseed/turnip-rape, where Uppsala produces 8% and 5% of the national production, respectively. On the other hand, some key food products highlight the relevance of the region in terms of ecological and organic agriculture. For example, the share of ecological milk farms is twice as high as for the country as a whole (36% vs. 19%). The regional population is growing at twice the national rate and is mainly concentrated in urban areas of the region. Yet, the region continues to be characterized as an important part of the population living in rural areas with also an important role of agriculture and forestry in land use (see

Table 4. Rural and urban population, and land used for forestry and agriculture in the municipalities of Uppsala Region and West Bothnia Region.

Municipalities in the Uppsala Region	Rural Inhabitants (%)	Urban Inhabitants (%)	Land Used for Forestry (%)	Land Used for Agriculture (%)
Enköping	27.8	72.2	44.2	44.8
Heby	37.5	62.5	72.4	16.8
Håbo	8.2	91.8	49.2	27.3
Knivsta	25.8	74.2	58.2	27.3
Tierp	66.8	33.2	74.1	13.8
Uppsala	11	89	63	23.9
Älvkarleby	9.3	90.7	80.1	1.8
Östhammars	32.1	67.9	73.9	13
Municipalities in the West Bothnia Region	Rural Inhabitants (%)	Urban Inhabitants (%)	Land Used for Forestry (%)	Land Used for Agriculture (%)
Bjurholm	58.1	41.9	90	1.9
Dorotea	48.4	51.6	70.1	0.1
Lycksele	26.1	73.9	83.4	0.3
Malå	32.7	67.3	74.5	0.1
Nordmaling	43.6	56.4	85.1	3.4
Norsjö	40.8	59.2	84.7	0.5
Robertsfors	55.3	44.7	80.2	7.2
Skellefteå	17.9	82.1	82.8	3.8
Sorsele	54.3	45.7	54.5	0.1
Storuman	42.4	57.6	58.4	0.1
Umeå	9.1	90.9	78.1	5.3
Vilhelmina	48.2	51.8	59.8	0.1
Vindeln	43.7	56.3	87.2	1.3
Vännäs	29.9	70.1	81.2	10.4
Åsele	39.9	60.1	82.6	0.1

Source: Authors’ own elaboration with data from SCB, Kommuner i siffror: https://kommunsiffror.scb.se/?id1=0380&id2=0331 (accessed 11 May 2026).

below). On the other hand, Uppsala County is one of Sweden’s fastest growing regions, with a new policy for food security in place with strong linkages to regional water governance. In 2023, Uppsala faced a drought, and then, floods affected thousands of hectares of agricultural land, leaving hundreds of farmers to cope with ensuing crop failures, fodder shortages and lost incomes. What is more, the combination of droughts, floods and water insecurity in a short period of time creates additional risks of maladaptation to climate change, when efforts to ensure rainwater runoff in forested lands lead to flooding in downstream agricultural lands.

The second case we targeted in our research is the agricultural and food system in West Bothnia, which is characterized by milk and meat production with a specialization in leys for fodder, along with pockets for potato cultivation and other animal products. West Bothnia is part of Northern Sweden. This entails geographical circumstances that make profitability in agriculture difficult [50], such as long winters following overall colder temperatures and a shorter growing season coupled with low population density and long distances for transport. Due to this, Sweden obtained the right to provide national support to northern Swedish agriculture when entering the EU, to ensure that it would remain in a competitive market, with the condition that production should not benefit to the extent that it exceeds the figures from the agreed reference year 1993 [50]. The support includes compensation support that applies to milk production, milk transport, piglet and slaughter pig production, and egg production, as well as potato, berry and vegetable growing [50] However, despite this national support, production in northern Sweden is decreasing. In 2024, the area for cultivation of potatoes was 30% of the area at the time of entry into the EU, and for berries and vegetables, the area was a corresponding 50% [51]. The milk production in northern Sweden in 2024 corresponded to approximately 80% of the production levels at the time of EU entry [51] Overall, milk production in the north of Sweden has decreased by 10% more than in the rest of Sweden since 1990 [50]. Without national support, much of the milk production in northern Sweden would simply be close to zero [50].

Table 4 below shows percentages of rural and urban inhabitants as well as the percentage of land used for forestry and agriculture in the eight municipalities that belong to Uppsala region and the 15 municipalities that belong to West Bothnia region:

In what follows, our empirical analysis of the contradictions of rural development in Uppsala and West Bothnia will be organized in order to first show the actors’ perspectives on negative trends in agriculture and how these actors approach the challenges for agricultural development and rural development in the two regions. Secondly, we will focus on how local alternatives and solutions toward sustainability are addressed and how a set of critical regional issues challenge the prospects for implementing more sustainable agricultural alternatives in practice, including agroecology.

As noted above, a main agricultural activity in Uppsala is cereal production. Within this context, some farmers are experimenting with traditional grain varieties/landrace grains. One of those farmers, who is an active member of an association of organic/ecological farmers, has engaged in landrace grains and has also considered including the commercialization of lamb meat as part of their search for market diversification. However, he explains, the barrier to entering the market for lamb meat is that, in his words, in Sweden,

“[…] they will be labeled as sheep, and sheep are unsellable. No one wants to buy sheep because they think it will taste like a wool cardigan […] Yeah, nobody would buy them”.

(UF#1)

In this regard, as another interview shows, implementing new visions for agriculture goes hand in hand with finding new economic possibilities by creating new local markets. A couple of part-time farmers explain how the creation of such new markets may play out at the micro level:

“…we grow corn for self-picking (pick your own corn) […] and so we have a market for some weekends. You can buy other vegetables as well and then pick your own corn. … it started on another farm […] and then they had moved so we took over the idea…”.

(UF#2)

Along with new channels for commercialization of their products, they reported on the relevance of harvest markets and also activities organized around a lake in the region (Lake Tämnaren) where different farms, local producers and local shops are open for visitors during a thematic day every year, which adds further possibilities to sell their products.

An important economic dimension of agriculture in Uppsala, but also noticeable in West Bothnia, is the key economic role of forestry in making agriculture viable. In Uppsala, a farmer who manages 580 ha of land explained that they own approximately 50% of the farmland and rent the other 50%. In addition, they own 230 ha of forest. While they manage the agricultural lands for cattle-raising and meat production, they outsource the management of the forest:

“[…] the majority of the services such as planting and clearing are bought. Someone has to do that work and since we do not have time, it’s better to have someone else do that, and who knows how to do it. Thus, we get this done on time and by people who know how to do it”.

(UF#3)

He also explained that they work with a regional forest owners’ association, which in turn hires the contractors to perform forest operations on the farm. As is the situation with a large number of farmers in Sweden, this farm includes both forest and agricultural land. Also, as shown in a recent report from 2025 that used the analysis of the Swedish board of agriculture, though in general terms the contribution of forestry to agriculture is declining, in some cases incomes from forestry are still key for the economy of small dairy and cattle farms:

“[…] on average about half of the income from the forest is invested in the agricultural operation. The study shows that small dairy and cattle farms have the largest share of income from forestry, and mainly dairy farms use funds from wood harvesting for investments”.

[52]

The report added that: “When LRF (Federation of Swedish Farmers) asks its members, they say that the forest plays a key role in agricultural investment. In January 2025, LRF asked this question in a member survey aimed at farmers who own at least 30 hectares of forest. In this survey, 61 percent responded that they use income from forestry to make investments in agriculture, such as buying new machinery or buildings” [52].

But the important presence of forests in agricultural farms, and the economic gains from forestry, becomes also a driving factor for the acquisition of farms. A farmer in the Uppsala region explained:

“Out here we have quite a lot of forest on each farm. So nowadays they buy the farm for the forest”.

(UF#6)

In this case, he is a retired farmer who still runs his farm and has invested in lamb production. In more general terms, he observed that there are two important issues concerning agriculture in the area:

“In the area now, we have some guys that the most they produce are crops. Animal farms are very small, and it is less and less and less because you have to work a lot of hours every day, 365 days a year you must be on the farm. And if you have produced crops, in the winter you can go to Mallorca and have some sun”.

(UF#6)

A civil servant at a rural municipality, elaborating on the issue of goal conflicts around land, expressed:

“I use it [goal conflicts around land] as an umbrella term, because we will use land for everything. But: What should we prioritize? There’s a reason we do not have a sustainable food supply and in this regard I think it’s important to highlight that there are other economic interests as well and they steer, and especially on land, which means that agricultural land is declining”.

(URM#1, during seminar in 2025)

Another factor for the declining role of agriculture in the region is domestic competition. A former potato grower in Uppsala, who is today active in the association of potato growers in Sweden, explained that behind the decline in potato growing in Uppsala is competition with producers in the south of the country. Also, he explained that mechanization and good irrigation are two prerequisites for competitiveness in the potato market:

“We mechanized. It is a prerequisite. It has to be rational and it has to work fast. […] But it is a prerequisite. Not to be able to irrigate the crop, then you risk very big money”.

(UF#7)

In this case, it is relevant to highlight that the interdependence between factors such as mechanization, geographical location, and access to water sources for irrigation structure the possibilities and barriers for being competitive within the domestic and regional market for potatoes. The focus on potatoes here is important to highlight, as this is a staple food in Swedish diets and is one of the few food items where Sweden is self-sufficient at the national level. However, as this shows, behind this national self-sufficiency there is an internal competition in the markets depending on geographical localization within the country.

To further show the relevance of geographical differences in the challenges for agriculture to regain its role as a driver of rural development, we bring empirical insights from West Bothnia in Northern Sweden. This is an area where agriculture is heavily dependent on climate conditions and short seasons, and thus, historically, meat and dairy production have been considered the key productive activities for agriculture. Today, the region is gaining considerable attention in the national policy for food preparedness, and there are a number of efforts at the level of the national State to reposition the region as a food producer area. Yet, the overall context here is characterized by a dramatic decrease in the number of farmers and productive farms. In the terms of one farmer:

“Back then [when he was young] there were lots who had like 35 cows, and we had an extremely secure food preparedness, but then they [the state] let that go. […] and profitability went down, down, down, then no one wanted to take it over, so they farmed until it didn’t work anymore, then that farm was closed down”.

(WBF#7)

Though this is a personal historical account of the economic and political causes of the decline in agriculture in the region, the farmer here refers to a structural change that, promoted through public policies, led to the deterioration of the conditions for production in the area. In the views of our interviewees, such public policies are a key factor in the decreasing profitability of agriculture in the region. Today, most of the farmers who struggle to keep agriculture alive in the region rely on dairy and meat production as an economic alternative to ensure profitability on the farms. Here, the economic difficulties of trying ecological or organic farming are explained in relation to demand and markets. A young pig producer explains:

“We have also talked about the possibility of having some part [of the production] ecological. But we do not, there is no demand really for KRAV [a Swedish organic certification] certified pigs in Norrland. So it makes it difficult because you have to create that market yourself”.

(WBF#2)

A similar view is shared by a farmer who runs an organic dairy farm and faces the challenges to sustaining ecological production of meat and dairy as an economically viable approach:

“[…] there are fewer and fewer products in the stores and sales are dropping. It’s like a downward spiral when there is nothing to buy [in the stores], the sales are dropping…And then, ok, sales are down, we [the stores] shouldn’t buy more organic milk to sell, so there is nothing for consumers to buy. Now, there is almost no organic cheese, for example”.

(WBF#4)

On the other hand, a remarkable trend in the revitalization of agriculture in the region is the arrival of Dutch farmers. As one of these farmers explains:

“We were the first Dutch who bought a farm here, […] and everyone sees the same possibilities here. There is a very good climate for growing grass and grass here is much better than in southern Sweden. […] We have 24 h light per day here in the summer so the grass is incredibly good here […] but we cannot grow corn here…”.

(WBF#3)

As noted earlier in the case of a farmer who is a member of one of the associations of ecological/organic farmers in Sweden, other interviewed farmers also highlighted the importance of being a member of a farmers’ association to navigate the challenges of agriculture and food production regionally. This membership plays a key cooperative role for farmers, by organizing local interests to address the regional challenges to keeping agriculture alive and also incorporate ecological concerns. We deepen this analysis by looking at two farmers who are part of the same national farmers’ association and are representatives in the local branches of this association in Uppsala and West Bothnia.

One farmer is a retired pig producer in the Uppsala region but still active as a representative of the local branch of a farmers’ association. In relation to the role of the association, she explained:

“I feel confident in what they [the national farmers’ association] have accomplished over all the years. This thing with both negotiations with the government and stuff like that, but also this lobbying activity. […] But I think that agriculture, if we hadn’t had it [the national farmers’ association], then farming would be gone today”.

(UF#9)

The farmer from West Bothnia agrees, expressing that he would not want to experience a world of political decisions on agriculture where the farmers’ association does not exist. He goes on to address the critique of this national farmers’ association as one association only representing conventional farmers, arguing that they represent them all, because all the farmers are needed (WBF#4).

These two farmers adopted organic/ecological practices for meat production. The Uppsala farmer described their transition to certified organic production as more ideological, in line with their own conviction:

“I guess none of us have been particularly fond of pesticides and sprays and stuff like that, but both my husband and I have probably thought it’s healthier with manure and all that. And artificial fertilizer. I don’t know. We thought it was more in line with the times, so to speak”.

(UF#9)

A contrasting view on motivations for certified organic meat production was offered by the same farmer in West Bothnia, who described his engagement with organic production as circumstantial, as this fits his farm better, with its large natural grazing areas. Furthermore, he explained the transition from older milk production to meat production as a financially viable way to take over the farm from the previous generation (WBF#4).

As discussed at a seminar in January 2026 in the West Bothnia region, where both farmers and civil servants in the county administration discussed the prospects of food security, there is agreement among farmers and civil servants that synergies between large- and small-scale farming were key to navigating the regional challenges for agriculture and food production. In relation to this, one of the key challenges in the two areas is the role of the EU agricultural policy in the local areas, which has both politically and economically materialized through projects linked to wider, and changing, frameworks for financing such projects. As a civil servant at the Uppsala County board administration explains:

“… But what is our biggest challenge here and now is really the long-term funding for this work. We are currently in a kind of middle ground between projects. A lot of projects in the Rural Development Programme […] the former EU Fund, need to be finalized. And then now we have a new agricultural fund from the EU called the Strategic Plan where we have sought new funds”.

(UCB#1)

Changes in funding are multiple, as the civil servant at the Uppsala county continues to explain the new challenge of the funds being heavily targeted, leaving the important strategic work underfinanced with short-term solutions.

In addition to the above empirical insights into the realities and challenges of farmers and civil servants in the two regions of Sweden we have researched, we can highlight here the following key findings from our research. First, our interviews indicate that alternative visions for agriculture in Uppsala interplay with a reconsideration of the relation between producers and consumers and the possibility of not only finding new markets, but to creating new local and regional markets. As with the example of farmers who participate in the Tämnaren circuit days, some of the farmers also use the e-commerce organized through the REKO-ring network. REKO-ring is a Facebook-based local Alternative Food Network primarily in Scandinavia, where you sell produce online via a Facebook group with set pickup dates, that creates a way for producers to obtain new markets [53,54]. Both of these show the goal of going beyond the markets has already been achieved by taking advantage of technologies to connect producers and consumers and also enable secure payments for the sales.

Second, local farmers and other actors (e.g., civil servants for the municipality targeted in the analysis) create a dynamic relation between innovation and tradition through which new economic opportunities are conceived as both economic and environmental alternatives. This is exemplified in the cases of specialty cheese production, lamb meat and landrace grains/cereals in farms, and in the effort to bridge local production and local consumption in one rural municipality.

Thirdly, in the case of West Bothnia in particular, we found that one response to decreasing profitability in agriculture is economy of scale, to constantly scale up and increase production. This means that the large farms become larger and that those that for various reasons cannot expand are being closed. On the other hand, having a larger geographically close farm or dairy farm is crucial for small and hobby farmers, due to the high financial cost of the equipment involved in ley farming and the possibility of renting from a farm able to carry the cost necessary to operate smaller farms. The tendency to impose large-scale agriculture also takes place in public procurement, which, for reasons of efficiency, means public organizations opt to buy mostly from large producers and retailers. In this context, the barriers to maintaining or increasing profitability gradually force the farms to close. This adds to the lock-out effects for smaller farms, being that they are difficult to sell on the real estate market. If the farm has not been scaled up and modernized, a change of generation often faces impossible investments, but even if the farm is modern, the lack of a generational change makes it unlikely that the farm will be sold. This stems from the difficulty of obtaining bank loans for farms in northern Sweden due to the low value of farmland property. The farms that are sold are described as those on the coast, where some Dutch farmers are now buying farms and scaling up production. In turn, the farm closures are causing the distance to grow between farms as well as between the farms and markets, repair shops, veterinary clinics and slaughterhouses. In addition to this spatial distance that entails decreasing cooperation among farmers, there is also a temporal distance to local knowledge, both of which put further economic pressure on the profitability of those who remain in agriculture.

4.3. The Case of Italy

The Sicily region is an island located in southern Italy and at the center of the Mediterranean basin. It is characterized by a remarkable diversity of landscapes, climates and agricultural systems, and considered a Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot [55]. The region’s fertile plains, such as those of Catania and Trapani, together with its extensive hilly and mountainous areas, sustain a rich agricultural tradition that includes the production of citrus fruits (two-thirds of the national area cultivated with oranges is located here), olives, wine grapes, cereals (18–20% of national durum wheat production), and horticultural crops—which have a significant economic impact due to the high level of specialization (23.5% of national production, 17.6% of greenhouse area at national level, essentially concentrated in the Ragusa province). Sicily is among the leading Italian regions in organic farming, with organically cultivated land accounting for 30.7% of the regional utilized agricultural area (UAA), well above the Italian average (around 19%), and with over 11,000 organic producers [56] (SINAB, 2024). Furthermore, Sicily plays a key role in promoting agroecological practices and quality certification schemes (PDO/PGI): the island hosts more than 67 certified PDO and PGI products, while quality-certified agri-food businesses account for around 35% of the sector’s turnover [56].

However, the region faces significant structural challenges, including fragmented land ownership (the average size of farms is about 6–7 hectares, which is below the national average), low value-added processing, limited infrastructure and logistics, and a highly ageing farming population (the average age of farmers is around 58–60 years). Despite its vast agricultural surface, productivity per hectare remains below the national average, and the sector faces increasing difficulties in finding seasonal and skilled labor, a strong reliance on family labor, and the growing use of foreign workers [57,58].

With approximately 5 million inhabitants, of which a significant proportion still live in rural municipalities, Sicily continues to be a region where agriculture and forestry dominate land use. Yet, urban concentration around metropolitan areas (such as Palermo, Catania, and Messina) is steadily increasing, shaping a dual structure of intensive lowland agriculture and extensive inland systems with high ecological value.1

Sicily faces mounting challenges linked to desertification, prolonged droughts, and extreme weather events, which increasingly threaten agricultural productivity and ecosystem stability. Rising temperatures and declining precipitation reduce soil moisture, limit crop germination, and exacerbate water scarcity, while episodic floods and heatwaves damage infrastructure and cultivated fields. The island is also considered a climate change hotspot. In 2024–2025, a drought emergency was officially declared. Regional authorities (in accordance with the national framework) drew up a water management plan to tackle the problem, through infrastructure improvements, water rationing and emergency management, and support measures for agriculture and local water storage. However, drought is officially declared as a systemic problem linked to planning failures, management inefficiencies and regulatory limitations (in addition to climatic factors) [62].

Unsustainable land use practices, including intensive monocultures and over-extraction of groundwater, further degrade soils, increase salinization risks, and accelerate desertification processes, particularly in the island’s semi-arid and hilly areas. Small and fragmented farms often lack the resources or support to implement adaptive measures, such as efficient irrigation, soil conservation techniques, or reforestation initiatives, leaving the agricultural sector highly vulnerable.2

Table 5. Percentages of rural and urban inhabitants as well as percentage of land used for forestry and agriculture in the nine provinces that belong to the Sicily region.

Province in the Sicily Region	Rural Inhabitants (%)	Urban Inhabitants (%)	Land Used for Forestry (%)	Land Used for Agriculture (%)
Palermo	35	65	14.3	47.6
Catania	30	70	14.1	32.4
Messina	40	60	35.8	27.8
Syracuse	50	50	4.7	46.7
Trapani	45	55	10.1	48.6
Agrigento	55	45	9.5	52.3
Ragusa	50	50	9.4	56.3
Caltanissetta	60	40	23.9	47.8
Enna	65	35	30	55

below shows percentages of rural and urban inhabitants as well as percentage of land used for forestry and agriculture in the nine provinces that belong to the Sicily region.

The empirical analysis of the contradictions in rural development in Sicily is based here not only on the views of various interviewees regarding negative trends in the agricultural sector and the way in which they address the main challenges in the region, but also on local alternatives and solutions geared towards sustainability, the prospects for agroecology, and the practical implementation of innovations introduced through national and regional policies, particularly to support organic farming and the promotion and development of organic farming districts (or biodistricts).

Sicilian farms have played a pioneering role in the development of organic farming in Italy. The president of an agricultural cooperative that can be regarded as an ‘agroecological lighthouse’, which grew out of one of the first organic wine cooperatives in the region (and in Italy) in the late 1990s, reflects on the agricultural context prior to the cooperative’s creation. He argues that the real victim of agricultural modernization was peasant culture itself, pointing to the erosion of traditional knowledge and skills:

“The introduction of mechanization and chemicals in the 1960s profoundly transformed the agricultural landscape. Biodiversity was destroyed and farming culture was replaced by a production-oriented approach. Farmers lost knowledge and confidence in farming without chemicals. […] many farmers no longer believe it is possible to practice organic farming”.

(SC#1)

The local agricultural system was based on an extensive model of grain–legume rotation, specifically wheat and sulla, alongside grain legumes such as broad beans, lentils and chickpeas. Sulla played a central role because it enabled the soil to be regenerated without chemical fertilizers, thanks to its strong nitrogen-fixing capacity and biomass production. This system allowed for agriculture without animals, as historically, farmers did not have livestock due to the large-estate structure (latifundium) and limited access to land. Soil fertility was therefore maintained exclusively through crop rotation (SC#1).

The cooperative initially established by six organic farms has grown to around 40 members. From the very beginning, the cooperative’s approach has been based on a clear choice: “organic certified and authentic”, understood not merely as adherence to a set of regulations, but as agricultural practices consistent with agroecological principles, based on crop rotation, biodiversity and self-sufficiency.

Structurally, the farms are small to medium-sized (ranging from around 3 to 40 hectares, with an average of 10–12 hectares) and grow similar crops: vineyards, olive groves, almond groves, wheat and legumes, with some also growing vegetables and fruit. The cooperative brings together a diverse range of produce, including wine, oil, and legumes, conserves and processed products (i.e., flour and pasta), with total production reaching several hundred tonnes.

A central element of the model is the integration of production, processing and distribution, while maintaining the “centrality of agriculture”. As the cooperative’s president explains, “agriculture plays the central role; everything else is a necessity, a consequence” (SC#1). The cooperative manages part of the processing operations directly (winery, oil mill, and processing plants for conserves and fresh produce) and works with external contractors where necessary, whilst sales are conducted through specialized channels (organic shops, consumers’ groups or cooperatives, food hubs, and the Fair-Trade network) and distributed fairly equitably throughout Italy and abroad.

“Our path has been to build a cooperative that focuses on agriculture, restoring its dignity and autonomy. We have created short supply chains, direct relationships with consumers, and collaborations with European organizations that share our values. The goal is to overcome the logic of the food industry and build a system where farmers and citizens are the protagonists, where production is sustainable and the price is fair for all actors in the supply chain”.

(SC#1)

In terms of its vision, the cooperative promotes a form of agriculture that is not merely productive but also cultural and political. For this reason, it rejects subordination to the logic of large-scale retail and advocates a direct relationship with consumers, who are seen as an active part of the agricultural project and involved in production decisions. The aim is to build transparent and participatory supply chains. Finally, the cooperative explicitly positions itself as an experiment in social and territorial transformation, committed to building economic and cultural alternatives based on cooperation, agroecology and productive autonomy, extending to include training activities and networking initiatives at national and international levels.

The cooperative is in fact the location and co-promoter, together with some activists and researchers, of the Practical School of Agroecology. The School organizes annual courses, involving both internal members and external experts, including farmers and sector specialists. Participants include both members of the cooperative and young local farmers, many of whom approach agriculture with a “neo-rural mindset, keen to manage their land in a more ecological way”.

The underlying idea for this agroecological school is that continuous training enables farmers to be more efficient and effective, in terms of production, culturally and communicatively. The Practical School of Agroecology was the location for the organization of two workshops in the framework of our research project. One of the workshops focused on developing guidelines for water resource management, as drought, soil erosion, high temperatures and the risk of forest fires were identified by several stakeholders interviewed as some of the most pressing issues. The Regional plan adopted for the water emergency in 2025 has been criticized in various technical and political contexts for the fact that it operates primarily on the basis of emergency response and scarcity management, without managing to structurally resolve the historical limitations of the water infrastructure, which was largely built in the post-war period to support the modernization of agriculture. The current system therefore reflects a long-standing tension: on the one hand, the legacy of an infrastructure designed for an intensive and centralized agricultural model; on the other, a contemporary phase marked by the climate crisis, fragmented management and the growing instability of water resources.

The workshop involved a technician from an NGO specializing in regenerative agriculture and farmers, members of the regional permaculture network, who have implemented (either independently or with technical support) a redesign of their farms incorporating level curves and swales. Following the training, the School is now equipped with a digital tool for key line design for water management, and this is available for common use.

Although it is a member of the Terre degli Elimi biodistrict (one of the first to be born at national level), based in the province of Trapani, the cooperative works with members of the newly established agroecological biodistrict Monti Erei, an inner area in the province of Enna. A representative of this one shares his view on the consequences of industrial agriculture in the area:

“The industrial agricultural model has led to extreme simplification of landscapes and almost total dependence on technical means. The connection with the land and with the community has been lost, resulting in agriculture that consumes more than it produces, not only in economic terms but also in ecological terms. Mechanization and the use of chemicals have reduced soil vitality and made traditional agricultural systems fragile”.

(SBD#1)

The Monti Erei territory presents significant potential for agroecological development. Small- and medium-sized family farms dominate the landscape, but fragmented landholdings, insecure tenure, and bureaucratic hurdles limit investments and access to innovation funds. Water scarcity, inefficient irrigation, and climate stress further challenge agricultural productivity, while traditional seeds and local varieties are crucial for resilience but remain underutilized due to regulatory and structural constraints. Adaptive practices such as crop diversification, efficient irrigation, soil regeneration, and agroecological techniques are gradually emerging, often due to the initiative of local farmers cooperating in networks, participating in research projects and mutually supporting each other.

The biodistricts—of which 80 have been mapped in Italy—are based on three key shared principles: the view of organic supply chains as the cornerstone of local development; the relationship with local authorities; and, finally, the direct involvement of citizens, both as recipients of education and training initiatives and as agents of change through their choices, not just in terms of consumption [63]. A common feature of the biodistricts is the adoption of a bottom-up and participatory approach to the local food system.

Following a process of development that began at association level and was subsequently entrusted to regional governments, the new Italian law on organic farming (Law No. 23/2022) defines organic districts as local systems based on organic production in accordance with EU Regulation 2018/848, with controls and certifications that guarantee quality and transparency, and entrusts the regions with the task of establishing the criteria for recognition. This requires a significant presence of organic activities and land as the basis for the development of the district. At the EU level, biodistricts are promoted by the European Commission as tools to integrate organic farming with local development and tourism, in line with the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity 2030 strategies. With the CAP 2023–2027, biodistricts play a key role as cooperative, place-based approaches focused on results, supporting sustainability, rural resilience, and the enhancement of ecosystem services.

In the Monti Erei context, knowledge is primarily transmitted through informal, participatory channels, including farmer exchanges, workshops, and training events. Young farmers and farmers’ networks bring innovation and expertise, supporting the adoption of sustainable practices while reinforcing cultural identity—i.e., agroecological practices such as intercropping, minimal or no-tillage, integration of crop and livestock systems, and innovative pest and climate-risk management. Economically, small and medium farms face market fragmentation and limited local consumption, despite producing high-value organic and geographically certified products. Alternative marketing channels, including direct sales, farmers’ markets, solidarity purchasing groups, and tourism-linked outlets, are emerging but need better infrastructure and processing facilities.

A young farmer, who took over the family farm after completing studies in philosophy and later became one of the promoters of the agroecological biodistrict, explained his efforts to promote agroecology in the area through the biodistrict by engaging other farms and local citizens. Central to this process was the transformation of his own farm, which had previously been based on wheat monoculture.

“I planted seven different varieties of almond trees, combining them with rosemary and lavender to promote biodiversity and repel harmful insects. The idea is to create a replicable model, in which each company experiments with sustainable and shared practices. The biodistrict thus becomes a space for cooperation and collective learning”.

(SBD#2)

However, farmers are faced not only with climate and environmental pressures but also with the political and institutional inefficiencies responsible for the failure of water governance on the island, as the young farmer explains:

“Paradoxically, the fact that my farm is very close to a dam does not guarantee me access to water, which is why one of the decisions I have made is to practice dry farming as much as possible […] the project I am working on is based on regenerative agriculture and permaculture”.

(SBD#2)

The producers interviewed generally emphasized the importance of having access to traditional seeds and native varieties in order to facilitate the transition to organic farming and agroecology, with a view to contributing to the resilience of production systems and ensuring greater adaptability to local soil and climate conditions. However, the lack of a structured exchange network and the predominance of certified industrial seeds effectively tend to limit the possibility of using and conserving local varieties. Moreover, current regulations on seed certification restrict the use and marketing of local varieties, making it difficult for farmers to conserve and reproduce seeds suited to the specific characteristics of the local area.

The interviews conducted highlighted that many producers are attempting to address this situation by relying on informal seed exchange networks to preserve local agricultural biodiversity, promoting the creation of community seed banks in collaboration with associations and research bodies. However, these initiatives remain largely marginal and lack technical and institutional support to ensure their long-term sustainability.

A woman presented the rationale behind her farming approach and her motivation for joining the biodistrict initiative, which offers grassroots support in a context of limited institutional backing for products derived from traditional varieties.

“The decision to grow heritage grains and revive traditional local varieties was one I made right from the start, alongside the decision to run the farm organically […] there is also the economic and production-related motivation, because whilst it is true that ancient and organic grains yield slightly less, it is also true that there are no additional costs, such as fertilizers and weedkillers”.

(SBD#3)

The figure of the “custodian farmer” in Italy is rooted in a policy framework aimed at linking agriculture with biodiversity protection and territorial governance. Nationally, Law No. 194/2015 established the legal recognition of farmers engaged in the conservation of local plant varieties and native animal breeds at risk of extinction, promoting “in situ” and “on farm” preservation as tools for safeguarding agricultural biodiversity and rural heritage. In Sicily, these principles were anticipated through Regional Law No. 19/2013 and later strengthened by Regional Law No. 21/2021.

This framework was further expanded by national Law No. 24/2024, which reflects a broader political shift in Italian rural policy: farmers are no longer viewed solely as food producers, but also as key actors in environmental stewardship and territorial resilience. The law explicitly connects agricultural activity with public interests such as hydrogeological risk prevention, landscape maintenance, wildfire prevention, and the protection of inland rural areas. Through the planned establishment of regional registers and support measures, the legislation reinforces the political role of agriculture within climate adaptation, land management, and sustainable development policies.

The experience of a young farmer who returned to the land by taking over his grandparents’ land is imbued with new approaches and sensibilities. The farm had to certify its production to be a member of the organic consortium through which almost the entirety of its produce is distributed to GAS (Solidarity Purchasing Groups). The farm applies agroecology and permaculture models to regenerate the soil and diversify production to combat desertification.

“The prickly pear, which used to be a monoculture, is now a “nurse” plant that promotes forest regeneration and creates more humid microclimates. We have introduced fruit trees, vegetables and wild plants, creating a productive and natural mosaic. It is a dynamic balance between profitability and biodiversity, which aims to keep the land and the territory alive”.

[SC#3]

The young farmer, member of the Monti Erei agroecological biodistrict, developed an organic production system for pasta based on ancient wheat varieties and marketed through short supply chains. A lengthy process of financial and technical support under the Rural Development Programme, amounting to a total investment of approximately EUR 290,000 (less than half of which was covered by a grant), enabled the establishment of facilities and equipment for wheat processing. The investment enabled the farm to evolve from a primary production unit into an integrated agro-food enterprise combining cultivation and processing activities within a “sustainable and regenerative model”. The farmer emphasized that processed products generate greater recognition among consumers, foster a sense of local pride and support an agricultural community that is increasingly vibrant and prosperous, while also creating opportunities for collaboration with other farmers through the shared use of processing facilities:

“…there is now no doubt that processed products clearly have a different impact on the consumer compared to raw wheat or flour, because they create recognition, and even a certain sense of pride in the local area; and they also prove to be an excellent way to network with other farmers who ask me to use the workshop or to carry out small-scale processing for them”.

[SBD#2]

However, as a “custodian farmer”, the interviewee stressed several challenges related to the regulatory framework and the public bodies responsible for biodiversity conservation and management. He highlighted the regulatory and technical difficulties associated with the commercialization of ancient wheat varieties, arguing that seed certification requirements are excessively strict and complicated for small-scale producers. Climatic constraints affecting seed reproduction further complicate the process. He also questioned the reliability of purity-control mechanisms, arguing that field inspections designed to verify genetic purity rely on certification criteria that tolerate only a minimal margin of error, potentially jeopardizing the recognition and conservation of traditional varieties. As he warned:

“If the variety is not reproduced every year, its certification becomes problematic. This year, many custodians did not harvest ancient wheat, and now there are no registered varieties in Sicily; the varieties could be lost”.

(SBD#2)

Local, traditional, and ancient crop varieties occupy a complex position within the seed regulatory framework, as they must comply with rules originally designed for uniform and standardized varieties. At the European level, seed marketing legislation requires that each variety meet the criteria of distinctness, uniformity, and stability. This creates a fundamental challenge, since local varieties—also protected under agricultural biodiversity policies—are, by their nature, genetically diverse and adapted to specific environments, making strict uniformity requirements difficult to satisfy.

Within this context, several critical issues emerge: the difficulty of local varieties in meeting legal uniformity requirements; the obligation to register in official national or EU catalogues for commercialization; the role of the Sicilian regional register, which protects but does not allow full market circulation; quantitative and bureaucratic constraints even within exemptions; and a valuation system that is often not fully compatible with the dynamic and diverse nature of traditional agricultural varieties.

The Monti Erei Agroecological Biodistrict exemplifies a model of sustainable territorial development and agroecological innovation. However the involvement of local administrations, cooperation among local actors and what some see as the conservative mindset of many farmers, particularly the older ones who are skeptical about adopting niche and high-quality crops and more familiar with conventional methods, which are often simpler and less labor-intensive than organic farming, are the main constraints.

A female farmer, who is a member of the biodistrict and participated in a local project bringing together local businesses to promote their produce within the tourism sector (i.e., supplying products to accommodation providers), highlighted the importance of cooperation but also some limits:

“the focus is solely on promoting the local area for tourism purposes, but a fundamental aspect is missing, namely the contact and relationships that could potentially develop around food”.

(SBD#3)

She is counting on the biodistrict role to address the shortcomings of similar projects, which focus on promoting the local environment and products for tourism but neglect relationships in the food supply chain, by adopting alternative marketing methods, including direct sales on farm premises, the revival of farmers’ markets, and participation in fair trade purchasing networks within the province and region.

In the context of deep crisis in the wheat sector, driven by pressures along the entire value chain that increase input costs and squeeze farmers’ prices (i.e., the wars in Ukraine and Iran, together with wheat imports from Ukraine), diversifying and combining varieties (traditional grains and hybrids), production (cereals and livestock), as well as supply chains and markets (short and long, industrial and alternative), represents a key strategy, as evidenced by the woman farmer’s style.

In the province of Enna, a predominantly cereal-growing area, cereal cultivation is no longer the primary occupation, as livestock farming is generally considered more profitable. Cereal production is often outsourced to contractors and reduced to a low-engagement activity. The interviewee also points to a broader process of specialization that has increased farmers’ dependency within the agri-food chain. Grain traders—who also supply seeds, fertilizers, and herbicides—offer integrated input packages that are reimbursed at harvest through grain deliveries. By offsetting the value of these inputs against the harvested grain, they effectively constrain farmers’ commercial autonomy and storage and marketing options. This system reflects a broader agro-food lock-in characterized by strong dependency on integrated input–output networks controlled by grain traders, resulting in significant asymmetries of power within the value chain. As she notes, this arrangement constrains farmers’ autonomy, leading to a situation in which they “no longer have the freedom to sell wherever you want, you no longer have the freedom to store wherever you want” [SBD#3]. At the same time, alternative practices that challenge this model are perceived as anomalous within the local context, as illustrated by the interviewee’s remark: “they look at me as if I were a three-headed eagle, because I deliver the wheat and then get paid for it when I say so, but I make flour out of it” [SBD#3], highlighting both the rarity and the social visibility of more autonomous value-chain organization, especially when led by a woman.

The woman, who is a custodial farmer, highlights the structural difference between two agricultural models, both of which she practices simultaneously.

On the one hand, there is the ‘conventional’ wheat model, where the logic is straightforward: the product is delivered to a cooperative or an industrial buyer within a relatively fixed timeframe, and payment is received. This system guarantees immediate cash flow for the farmer and reduces uncertainty, particularly in an unstable economic and climatic context.

On the other hand, the market for ancient grains operates very differently: it is a ‘slow market’, less standardized and more oriented towards processing and value-adding. Here, value is not realized immediately through the sale of the grain, but is built up over time through the supply chain: first the storage or selection of the product, then its processing into flour at the mill, and finally the sale of the finished product. It is a “stepwise [value-chain] logic” approach, where income is distributed across different stages.

In this second model, the farmer does not simply sell a raw material but plans their production in relation to processing. She explains that they can decide, for example, to arrange with a mill to grind specific quantities based on their own availability and sales strategy, and to hold back part of the harvest to sell it later, when the price of the remaining wheat is more favorable.

In the ancient grains model, the pressure to sell immediately is reduced, because value is not tied solely to the price at harvest time (which is generally low and dictated by the industry), but to the ability to manage the supply chain over time. However, this also requires greater organization, more planning and a stable relationship with the various stakeholders (processors, mills, custodian farmers, informed consumers) who act as a bridge between production and the market.

In short, it is not merely a question of two different markets, but of two opposing economic logics: one based on immediate liquidity and standardization, the other on longer timeframes, product transformation and the gradual building of value.

In offering an explanation of the current problems with agriculture and the environment in Sicily, a representative of the Agroecology Sicily Coordination states:

“In recent decades, European and national agricultural policies have favored an intensive, centralized model that has destroyed the social foundations of agriculture. Farmers have become mere executors of directives and suppliers of raw materials for the food industry. This process has eroded not only soil fertility but also the cultural fertility of the land, emptying villages and wiping out the social function of agricultural work”.

(SA#1)

The Agroecology Sicily Coordination is a non-profit association that promotes agroecology in Sicily. The organization engages in activities such as raising public awareness, lobbying for policy changes, and implementing projects like crowdfunding campaigns, such as “Roots for the Future: Plant Your Tree”, and training events. It has also proposed a Rural Energy Plan for Sicily (PERAS) to protect agricultural areas. But it is especially relevant because it played a key role in the creation of the Sicilian Regional Law on agroecology 21/2021, the first law on agroecology at the European level, which only entered into force in early 2025 (following the adoption of the implementing decree D.D.G. No. 273 of 20 January 2025). For this framework, Sicily emerges as a pioneering example of subnational legal innovation, translating FAO agroecological principles into measurable and enforceable obligations. For example, requiring 20% of cultivated land to be allocated to native varieties within 5 years, or mandating the reforestation of 10% of land with indigenous tree species, serves to operationalize the agroecological principles of diversity and synergy; cultural and food traditions are preserved through environmental certification and sustainable farm plans compliant with EMAS or ISO 14001 standards, suggesting an alignment between agroecological objectives and formal environmental management systems. However, this institutional framing may also risk reducing culturally embedded practices to standardized procedural requirements, which means formal compliance procedures within environmental governance frameworks.

The goal of the Agroecology Sicily Coordination is to turn Sicily into a single large agroecological biodistrict. To achieve this, it promotes the creation of new biodistricts or the conversion of existing ones toward an agroecological perspective, encouraging the adoption of agroecological practices and formal recognition of farms as agroecological through certification, enabling access to incentives under regional rural development policies. However, the certification system established by the Regional Law on agroecology, based on professional technical responsibility by agronomists trained in agroecology, is debated within the local agroecological movement, which proposes participatory certification approaches as an alternative to overcome a mere technical evaluation. At the same time, some actors within the agroecological movement seek to carve out institutional space within the regional regulatory framework for local varieties—tree, cereal, shrub, and herb species derived from seeds reused or exchanged among agroecological farms in Sicily. While formally enabled by national legislation (Art. 1, para. 4, Legislative Decree 20/2021), this process remains embedded in a highly regulated certification system aligned with EU seed marketing rules. Although framed as a means to adapt seeds to local environmental, economic, and cultural conditions through participatory selection, it requires farms to formally declare seed origins and to submit varieties for official recognition by regional authorities, highlighting the tension between grassroots seed autonomy and institutional validation. In addition to the empirical insights presented above, our analysis highlights four key findings concerning alternative pathways for agricultural and rural development in Sicily.

First, agroecological initiatives are closely linked to efforts to rebuild relationships between producers and consumers through different kinds of disintermediated or short supply chains, such as solidarity purchasing groups, food hubs, consumer cooperatives, and biodistricts. These initiatives seek not only to access alternative markets but also to create new territorial food networks based on cooperation, shared responsibility and cultural/identitarian aspects, thereby challenging the dominant role of large-scale retail and conventional agri-food chains.

Second, the cases analyzed reveal a dynamic interaction between innovation and tradition. Agroecological actors combine the recovery of traditional knowledge, local varieties, and heritage grains with new forms of technical experimentation, processing facilities, digital tools, participatory learning, and environmentally restorative farming practices. Agroecology therefore emerges not as a return to the past but as a process of socio-ecological innovation that is a non-conventional innovation prioritizing local needs over efficiency appropriate, accessible and ecologically balanced, and repairing, reusing and reconfiguring old technology for present purposes. This process of socio-ecological innovation, involving different actors, links biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, economic diversification, and the regeneration of rural knowledge systems.

Third, biodistricts and agroecological networks play an important role as territorial governance innovations. They create spaces for cooperation among farmers, citizens, researchers, associations, and local authorities, supporting collective learning and the diffusion of agroecological practices. However, the empirical material also reveals tensions between grassroots initiatives and institutional frameworks. While recent regional and national policies increasingly recognize agroecology, certification systems, seed regulations, and formal administrative requirements often remain aligned with conventional models, limiting farmers’ autonomy and creating barriers for local varieties, participatory breeding processes, and community-based forms of innovation.

Finally, the Sicilian cases demonstrate how agroecological transitions emerge as responses to multiple and interconnected crises, including climate change, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, market concentration, and the declining profitability of conventional agriculture. Yet, these initiatives continue to operate within a broader agri-food regime characterized by value-chain dependency, economies of scale, and asymmetric power relations. As a result, the transformative potential of agroecology depends not only on farm-level innovation but also on the capacity to reshape market structures, regulatory frameworks, and territorial governance arrangements that currently constrain more autonomous and resilient food systems.

Based on our empirical analysis above, in the following Section 5, we move into a comparative analysis and discussion.

5. Comparative Analysis and Discussion

Based on the empirical presentation of both cases above, we focus our comparison by critically analyzing the interplays between national and regional policies in the two countries and the local perspectives emerging from the participants in this research. Thus, rather than relying solely on individual experiences, the findings emerge from the triangulation of interview material with the analysis of institutional and policy frameworks. In doing so, we draw from Historical Materialist Policy Analysis (HMPA) and our conceptual framework linking Food Regime Analysis and Political Agroecology. In term of analyzing contexts, actors and processes, the following empirical insights emerge and can be seen in greater detail in

Table 6. Summary of main findings. Authors’ own elaboration.

	Sweden	Sicily
Actors’ perspectives on negative trends in agriculture	- Market limitations: Some products (e.g., lamb) are difficult to sell due to cultural perceptions or labeling, limiting the viability of new potential farm products to support local agriculture. - Extreme climate events that bring new goal conflicts between agriculture, forestry and water management. - Administrative and bureaucratic impediments and hurdles, e.g., EU funding cycles, long administrative times that create uncertainty and hinder long-term agricultural planning and farmers’ easy access to support.	- Industrialization and chemical inputs in agriculture, negative impact of mechanization, and industrial agriculture since the 1960s. - Simplified landscapes, reduced biodiversity, weakened soil vitality, and eroded traditional agricultural knowledge and social structures - Policy-induced dependency, e.g., European and national agricultural policies that have promoted centralized, intensive production, leading farmers to act mainly as suppliers of raw materials for the food industry - Market pressures on smallholders and organic production by large companies creates competition that small farmers struggle to match.
Actors’ views on regional challenges for agricultural development and rural development in the two countries	- Economic vulnerability and dependence on external markets introduce risk for local alternatives that are seen as crucial for food preparedness. - Balancing production and family life leads to difficult economic or lifestyle choices, risking and reducing engagement in farming. - Generational shifts are difficult, even when families want to support their children taking over the farms.	- Structural and regulatory barriers represented in fragmented land holdings, insecure tenure, bureaucratic hurdles, and water scarcity, which challenge farm productivity and adoption of agroecological practices. - Cultural and generational engagement is difficult for younger generations in agriculture, risking possibilities to preserve traditional knowledge. - Market and supply chain characterized by limited local consumption, underdeveloped local markets, and need for alternative marketing channels
Local alternatives and solutions toward sustainability	- Creating and maintaining new local markets, e.g., self-picking farms, harvest festivals (e.g., Lake Tämnaren circuit), and REKO-ring (e-commerce) that helps to connect local production with local consumption. - Forestry–agriculture integration: forestry serves as a backup for agriculture, supporting farm sustainability - Part-time and diversified operations: Farmers combine crop production, livestock, and delivery to niche markets to create diversified income sources - Innovative marketing and use of technology appropriate for local commercialization of farm products: e.g., digital tools and platforms facilitate direct sales and secure transactions between producers and consumers.	- Agroecological cooperatives and biodistricts: Initiatives like Monti Erei biodistrict and agroecological cooperatives promote crop diversification, local seed use, soil regeneration, integrated pest management, and short supply chains. - Community and cooperative models: Emphasis on participatory knowledge transfer, collaborative land management, and cooperation between farmers, consumers, and local institutions - Cultural revitalization and education: Programs to engage youth, create awareness of traditional farming practices, and foster rural tourism - Innovation at farm level: Integration of permaculture, mixed crops, “nurse” plants like prickly pear, and multi-species agroecosystems
Critical issues challenging the prospects for agroecology and implementation of more sustainable agricultural alternatives in practice	- Market perceptions and consumer preferences guided by market prices: Certain products (e.g., lamb) face cultural resistance, limiting market potential - EU funding and policy uncertainty hinder long-term planning. - Land use conflicts and competition between agricultural, forestry, and other economic interests can undermine sustainability objectives. - Labor and expertise constraints linked to mechanization and technological complexity in agriculture. - Outsourcing of activities such as forest operations due to lack of time or specialized skills can limit implementation of sustainable practices at the farm level, such as, for example, agro-forestry - Farmers manage a combination of owned and rented land, and often forests, creating challenges in workforce and expertise allocation.	- Structural and regulatory constraints such as those found in land fragmentation, complex bureaucracy, water scarcity, and climate stress, impeding widespread adoption of agroecology - Small/medium-scale farmers struggling to compete with larger actors in organic markets - Cultural erosion and generational gaps and youth disengagement threaten continuity of traditional and sustainable farming practices.

.

First, and in terms of contexts, our analysis suggests that the regional settings for the implementation of these food and agriculture policies are characterized by contradictions between visions for a profound transformation of agriculture and food systems, as well as the political maintenance of a corporate food regime. But there are also contradictions within industrial agriculture in the context of national food security and preparedness, as exemplified in the cases of decreasing regional production of key foods due to domestic competition. This also shows that within the corporate food regime, the capacity of industrial agriculture to respond to new social demands for local food security and preparedness is limited due to its own development and the national contexts of market competition. But in the context of the reproduction of the food regime at the regional level, and in light of what we have found in the perspectives of our respondents, markets are a key political challenge in terms of both the role of existing markets and the possibilities to create or access new markets.

Second, and in relation to actors, while public actors try to implement policies that aim at addressing current concerns and challenges for agriculture in the two countries (see Table 3 above), the local realities of farmers and rural development actors show conflicts between the goals and implementation of these public policies. But these conflicts are also opportunities for actors to move forward innovative and bottom-up ecological/organic and agroecological practices. In our analysis, this shows, as political agroecology suggests, that agricultural and food system transformations in the context of sustainability goals are key areas for rural actors’ political action today.

Third, and concerning processes, a regional analysis of the processes through which national policies in both countries are implemented shows that regional policy-making is an important factor to be considered in assessing the response of the state to the new demands for food security and preparedness and a shift towards more ecologically oriented agriculture and food. In this process, the agricultural policy options in line with sustainability goals, such as those represented by ecological/organic farming in Sweden and agroecology in Italy, advance notwithstanding the structural barriers they face in each country. This shows that the politics of agriculture and food system transformation are, to a very important degree, a local process that cannot be simply subsumed in the overall logic of the national state. In this regard, our empirical analysis also indicates that the existence of key regional innovations that aim at preserving agriculture and local food production are at the same time ways to politically envision agroecological rural futures locally. This in turn contributes to repositioning local agriculture and food production in the politics of rural development by acknowledging regional backgrounds where economies of scale and competition with international food producers, and also domestic competition, are a key constraint. For the specific case of domestic competition as a problem, we can highlight again the example of a food staple such as potatoes in Sweden, where competition with producers in the south of the country constrains local producers further north.

In Table 6 below, we offer more details and key findings to show regional similarities and differences between the case studies.

In light of the above, our comparative analysis indicates that in both countries, there are tensions between traditional knowledge and pressures to integrate productivist economic and administrative measures into agriculture. Yet, these tensions differ in how they manifest: the alternative visions for agriculture in Sicily focus strongly on territorial-level strategies (biodistricts) combined with farm-level agroecology to restore cultural, ecological, and economic resilience. In contrast, for Uppsala and West Bothnia in Sweden, the alternatives emphasize market and network innovation, leveraging local consumption, diversification of farm activities, and integration of forestry for sustainable livelihoods. Furthermore, we identify the following key social processes concerning the revitalization of local agriculture in the context of rural development: (1) new markets for local and/or ecological/organic food, (2) innovation and tradition in agriculture, and (3) social organization for cooperation and collective action. We further analyze these social processes below.

As shown in several interviews with farmers, creating and maintaining new markets for organic or ecological food is key in opting for more sustainable farming methods. Yet, here we can make two important observations about how these new markets differ from the capitalist markets that are at the center of the reproduction of the corporate food regime and its central contradictions. The first observation is that these are markets with a more direct and personal relation between producers and consumers. Secondly, these markets are localized and built around local processes or interconnect with networks elsewhere sharing alternative values. Spatial and social relations are thus qualities at the center of what in more descriptive terms are understood as local markets and resemble these defined as nested markets. In this regard, we theorize these local markets connecting local food production as politically created markets that contradict the very logic of the global market through which the corporate food regime operates. Within this context, alternative visions for rural development are also emerging in a process where the very meaning of the market is disputed, as shown by the empirical evidence for the role of e-commerce in alternative food networks.

In terms of cooperation, we identified different territorial organizations such as local farmers’ associations and cooperatives and biodistricts that play a key role in mobilizing resources and actors to maintain agriculture. In more specific terms, in Sicily, we found the emergence of the innovative approach of the biodistricts contributes to repositioning agroecology at the local level and amplifying its role in agriculture and development. It has emerged as a novel collaborative form. While promoting more sustainable farming alternatives that include, for example, crop diversification, local seed use, soil regeneration, and integrated pest management, it serves also the objectives of establishing short supply chains for local agriculture, in contradiction to the corporate food regime. Though there is not a corresponding territorial organization initiative like the Biodistrict in Sweden, there are farmers practicing and promoting alternative ecological practices at the territorial level, and they articulate their interests through local farmers’ associations.

The combined analysis of the farmers’ and regional actors’ perspectives and the analysis of the national and regional public policies, as well as new strategies and regulations aimed towards food security and a more sustainable agro-food system in the two countries, indicate that there are important tensions between these national-level policies and the practical barriers faced by farmers and other local actors. This becomes especially visible when they try to address the new demands for agriculture and food production at the regional level. In the case of Sicily, these tensions are reflected in the implementation of policies supporting organic farming, biodistricts, agroecology, biodiversity conservation, and climate adaptation. While regional and national frameworks increasingly promote agroecological transitions, interviewees consistently highlighted challenges related to water governance, seed certification, the commercialization of local varieties, market concentration, and access to value-added supply chains. These issues point to broader governance and regulatory constraints that extend beyond individual farms and reveal gaps between policy ambitions and implementation practices.

Yet, in the case of Sweden, there are also important differences across the two regions targeted in this study. While in Uppsala we found that lack of public investment support and funding for agriculture was a key issue among our respondents, our respondents in West Bothnia indicated that lack of support is not a major problem. Similarly, in Sicily, some actors perceive biodistricts and agroecological initiatives as effective instruments for territorial innovation, cooperation, and rural regeneration, whereas others emphasize persistent administrative barriers, regulatory rigidities, and unequal market structures.

As the empirical evidence for the key role of the different organizational forms represented by farmers’ associations in Sweden and cooperatives and biodistricts in Italy suggests, not only do these organizations play a key role in situating farmers’ interests in the context of structural conditions such as those represented by policies favoring markets. In fact, and in addition to intervening in those institutional processes, these organizations play key roles in personal decisions at the farm level and across generations. In this way, these different organizational forms and their adoption are key intertwined factors in explaining the changes in agricultural development in the different regional settings and show how changes towards ecological production are possible. As political agroecology suggests, the structural constraints of industrial agriculture are also spaces for alternative agricultural practices. In this way, food regimes are also transitional and are shaped by ideological and structural factors.

Finally, our analysis of the views of farmers and other rural actors through the lens of the regional strategies for food and agriculture indicates that though aiming for important changes at the regional level, these strategies depend to an important degree on how the national and international articulation of food relations is organized. In light of this analysis, the different food strategies adopted in Sweden and Italy can be understood as agri-environmental policies that, notwithstanding the declared goals of making agriculture more sustainable, reproduce at the same time a view on agriculture highly dependent on market forces, constant technological change and competition both in the international and domestic markets. In addition, looking at common challenges of water use in agriculture, as well as the vulnerability of agriculture to the consequences of new extreme climatic events in the two countries, indicates that these policies lack a vision to properly address the nexus between water governance and agriculture and the trade-offs thereby.

6. Conclusions

Our findings, and the analysis of the case studies above, highlight first the contested role of market relations in agri-environmental policy and the everyday struggles of farmers to sustain local agriculture. Secondly, our study suggests that, in parallel with the attempts to maintain and scale up local food production through market relations underpinning a corporate food regime, there are also bottom-up efforts to sustain local agriculture by combining innovation, traditional knowledge and alternative views for rural development. Our conclusions therefore concern recurring patterns in the interaction between institutional and policy frameworks and local practices, rather than claiming that individual interviewees are statistically representative of broader farming populations. Still, our qualitative analysis allowed a deepening of the analysis of how regional settings interplay with and influence agricultural development and practices oriented towards ecological transformations of agriculture. In this regard, one important contradiction in rural development in the two countries originates in the market relations that become a structural challenge in two fundamental ways.

First, markets are a structural challenge to maintaining agriculture as a viable economic contribution to rural development. Second, alternative food production systems require either access to markets for organic or ecological food or the establishment of their own market and commercialization mechanisms. This is a challenge for both conventional agriculture and for the actors that aim at developing ecologically oriented food production. In our analysis, we can observe a contradiction between expectations for more ecologically and locally produced food and the reality of consumption of food through markets where the terms of exchange are decided in economic terms and where reinforcing market mechanisms determine the price and availability of food. This results in vulnerability for the farmers and uncertainties over engaging in transitions toward more ecologically produced food, and as a consequence, it jeopardizes the potential for scaling up farmers’ efforts to transform agriculture toward more ecological, organic or agroecological food production. Here, the actions and aspirations of local food producers we have approached in our research highlight the difficulties in dealing with the market dynamics that operate at national or regional levels. In our analysis, this type of contradiction shows that markets are politically constructed and transformed. In this regard, we have identified that efforts for more ecologically oriented agriculture in the two countries unfold through innovation and the recovery of traditional knowledge in agriculture.

As we can observe from the views on more sustainable farming expressed by several interviewees in the two countries, there are local efforts to innovate and simultaneously recover “old” farming practices and revalue them in light of current social and environmental challenges for agriculture. This combination of innovation and traditions plays a key role in the process of keeping local agriculture alive. As the cases of farmers working with agroecology in Italy and organic farming in Sweden show, combining innovation and tradition in agriculture unfolds in ways that show similar factors triggering social organization for cooperation and collective action for alternative agricultural and food system transformation.

Based on our findings and analysis, we have identified the following key policy issues that need to be addressed in policy-making in Sweden and Italy alike.

The first concerns the need to improve the regional assessments of the local needs of farmers and local actors who, while struggling to scale up agroecology and ecological/organic farming, are still dependent on market dynamics influenced by national and international factors. The findings suggest that sustainability-oriented farmers face structural barriers related not only to production but also to processing, distribution, and commercialization. Policies should therefore move beyond farm-level support and strengthen territorial food infrastructures, including local processing facilities, short supply chains, producer–consumer networks, and public procurement schemes that can enhance the economic viability of local food systems.

A second policy implication relates to the governance of natural resources, particularly water and biodiversity. In both countries, climate change is increasing pressures on agricultural production, although through different dynamics. The findings indicate that current policy approaches remain largely reactive and fragmented, focusing on emergency management rather than long-term adaptation. Future policies should strengthen the integration of water governance, climate adaptation, and agricultural development, while supporting agroecological approaches that enhance soil fertility, water retention, biodiversity, and resilience to extreme weather events. Also, such policies should foster flexible regulatory arrangements that support synergies between conservation, sustainable water management, and regional food systems.

A third key policy challenge is to design policies that can facilitate the engagement of younger generations in farming. While the causes of the problems for a generational shift in agriculture differ in the two countries, e.g., restrictions on bank loans to acquire farms in Uppsala and in West Bothnia in Sweden and youth disengagement in Sicily, in both countries, the aim of a generational shift requires innovative policies and cannot be addressed solely through financial incentives. It also requires investments in training, social farming, agroecological education, cooperative structures, and rural innovation networks capable of making agriculture socially meaningful and economically viable for new entrants.

Finally, we would like to highlight that in terms of policy challenges concerning the regulatory environment surrounding agricultural biodiversity and agroecological innovation, the ongoing negotiations for the new CAP-program 2028−2034 and increasing public awareness of food preparedness offer a great opportunity for policy to move the positions forward regarding more sustainable regional agricultural practices. Beyond supporting more sustainable farming practices, future CAP instruments and related national plans and strategies should address structural constraints affecting local food systems, including market concentration, unequal bargaining power along value chains, barriers to agricultural biodiversity, and the growing challenges posed by climate change and water insecurity.