Farmers’ Experiences of Transitioning Towards Agroecology: Narratives of Change in Western Europe

Abstract

Transitioning to agroecology on dairy and beef farms is touted as a sustainable response to environmental externalities. The current study conducted narrative interviews with farmers who transitioned towards agroecological food production by implementing pro-environmental diversification measures in the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and France. The study aimed to determine farmers’ experiences of agroecology and used a thematic approach for the analysis. Results indicate that the motivations, values and principles of farmers transitioning to agroecology are closely aligned with the ideology of the new/peasantry. Farmers’ decisions were primarily influenced by ecological principles and a sense of responsibility towards environmental protection, with particular biographical events central to the transition to an alternative food production system based on agroecology. Other explanatory factors related to farmers’ desires to increase the autonomy and profitability of the farm, and their conscious efforts to eliminate dependence on external inputs. Farmers who entered agriculture with no family background in farming had acquired skillsets which provided them with specific advantages in advancing towards agroecological goals. This paper provides insights relevant to policymakers, extension and education providers on how to practically support agroecological transition.

1. Introduction

The intensification of agriculture over the last century is considered one of the primary drivers of improved food security; however, it has also contributed to widespread biodiversity losses and climate change [1,2]. Recent analyses of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and biodiversity loss estimate that agriculture is the source of 11% of global GHG emissions and threatens the habitats of almost 86% of the 28,000 animal species nearing extinction [3]. Increases in the frequency of extreme weather events and the depletion of biodiversity pose significant consequences for both agriculture and wider society, including reduced soil productivity and the proliferation of crop and livestock diseases [4].

The United Nations Environment Programme identifies context-specific nature-based solutions and other ecosystem-based approaches as the most important means of mitigating and adapting to climate change, as well as addressing pollution and biodiversity loss [5]. The field of agroecology has produced new systems-based paradigms for agriculture and its relationship to people and ecosystems. Some of the functions of agroecology include reducing reliance on external inputs, especially those obtained from fossil fuels. It also aims to enhance self-organised ecological functions that promote soil regeneration, natural pest predation, natural hydrological cycles, and diverse local communities. Agroecological principles and practices are partially rooted in traditional knowledge and techniques of peasants and indigenous peoples, even though these groups did not use ‘agroecology’ as a specific term [6,7]. According to Wezel et al. [8] agroecology is not limited to a set of practices—it also refers to a scientific discipline and a social movement. As a social movement, agroecology evolved first in the Global South in response to problems resulting from globalised and industrialised agro-food systems, with the main goals of restructuring agri-food systems to ensure the right to food through socially and environmentally sustainable and just practices.

Although the number of publications on agroecology has increased steadily over the last twenty years, the number of publications which use the term ‘agroecology’ in the European context is relatively low, ranging from 29 to 41 per year in the years 2020–2023 (assessed August 2024 in the Web of Science, using the query agroecology OR agro-ecology AND Europ* and searching within titles, abstracts and keywords). Thus, the complex topic of agroecological transformation in European countries is rather limited. In total, most publications were published in France (n = 102), the UK (n = 66), Italy (n = 54), and Spain (n = 52); and in the case of the Republic of Ireland, only seven studies were identified.

The establishment of the Institute of Sociology and Peasant Studies (ISEC) within the University of Cordoba in mid-1978 is considered by many authors as the origin of agroecology in Europe [9,10,11]. Spanish researchers actively collaborated with researchers from the University of Wageningen and researchers from Mexico and other countries from Latin America [9,12]. ISEC and the International University of Andalusia organised a research-led master’s degree on Agroecology and Sustainable Rural Development in Latin America, which, even though based in Spain, attracted students from Latin America, where the concept became much more popular than in Europe [9]. The more substantial success of the agroecology concept in Latin America than in Europe may be primarily due to differences in farming demographics and types of economic reliance on agriculture. In Europe, there are relatively fewer farmers, and they can often constitute a minority even in rural areas. Furthermore, many European farmers do not depend solely on agriculture for their livelihood; they typically engage in other economic activities and may have other sources of income [9,10].

While the concepts of ‘smart agriculture’ or ‘sustainable intensification’ share some common aspects with agroecology, as they aim to lower agricultural inputs, they often propose technological rather than nature-based solutions. Moreover, these concepts often do not consider the social justice aspect of the food system transformation and, in fact, advocate for the continuity of the current food system. As such, they correspond to ‘weak’ agroecology as opposed to ‘strong’ agroecology, defined by its goal of using biological processes to achieve coherent sustainability [13,14]. Consistent with Wezel et al. [15], for the purpose of this paper, we refer to the definition of agroecology given by the Association of Agroecology Europe (www.agroecology-europe.org accessed on 6 January 2025): “Agroecology is considered jointly as a science, a practice and a social movement. It encompasses the whole food system, from the soil to the organisation of human societies. It is value-laden and based on core principles. As a science, it prioritises action research, holistic and participatory approaches, and transdisciplinarity, including different knowledge systems. As a practice, it is based on sustainable use of local renewable resources, local farmers’ knowledge and priorities, wise use of biodiversity to provide ecosystem services and resilience, and solutions that provide multiple benefits (environmental, economic, social) from local to global. As a movement, it defends smallholders and family farming, farmers and rural communities, food sovereignty, local and short marketing chains, diversity of indigenous seeds and breeds, healthy and quality food”.

The agricultural sector in Europe is highly heterogeneous, with its GHG emissions and impacts on biodiversity differing from region to region. Thus, it is argued that agroecological strategies, such as organic farming, agroforestry, and conservation grazing, necessitate a regionally specific approach [16]. Located in Western Europe and among the top ten highest contributors of GHG emissions from agriculture in the continent, the Republic of Ireland (IE), the United Kingdom (UK) and France emerge as relevant case studies [17]. Moreover, the differences between these countries in terms of agricultural diversity are particularly notable. France is characterised by a high diversity of agricultural production, with an agricultural output per sector of 13% for cereals, 11.7% for wine, 15.6% for milk, 12.9% for cattle and 14.7% for fruits and vegetables [18]. By contrast, Ireland’s agricultural profile is highly homogeneous, with pasture-based dairy and beef production contributing over 60% of Ireland’s agricultural output and total grass and rough grazing area sharing 92% of the total agricultural area [18]. This can be compared to the UK, where overall grassland area occupies over 75% of agricultural land in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the western part of England, while in Eastern England, grassland accounts for less than 25% of agricultural land [19].

Mićić et al. [20] report that farmers in Bosnia and Herzegovina typically lack familiarity with the concepts of agroecology and agro-environmental measures, even though they may implement agroecological principles on their farms. While we do not have similar data for the case-study regions, it can be assumed that this trend is likely prevalent in many European countries. However, as stated by Hutcheson et al. [21] and Dagunga et al. [22], farmers cannot be solely responsible for driving the agroecological transition; it requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders in participatory, transdisciplinary processes. Sustainable agricultural interventions must adopt participatory approaches that acknowledge the unique contexts of different farming systems. It is also crucial to remember that agroecology centres on human and social values, addressing equity and social justice in food systems, supporting the well-being and autonomy of food producers, and fostering dignified work. It also aims to reshape our interactions with nonhuman species and ecosystems for a more sustainable food future [23].

It was demonstrated that UK farms engaged in agroecological transition experience a diverse range of pathways of efficiency, substitution, and redesign rather than following a linear progression [21]. This varied approach indicates that farmers can enter the transition at different points and approach redesign in unique ways. Recognising that there is no single starting point or predefined pathway allows for more flexible and individualised strategies in the transition process. On the other hand, the agroecological farming system requires farmers to take on the role of innovators within their own farming practices. They must actively co-produce relevant knowledge that allows them to make meaningful changes in their specific situations. This contrasts sharply with conventional agriculture, which often expects farmers to simply follow predetermined methods or “recipes” [24]. To effectively support farmers in the transition to agroecology, it is crucial to understand their motivations and objectives, which will help clarify the trajectory and potential outcomes of transition [21].

Gallardo-López et al. [10] report that the majority of publications on European agroecology address agroecology as science or practice, with fewer addressing agroecology as a social movement [20,21,25,26,27]). Yet, agroecology has become increasingly important in the European debate on the agri-food system [15]. According to Schoonhoven and Runhaar [26], several conditions must be met to promote the adoption of agroecological practices among farmers. First, farmers need to be motivated to embrace these practices, and this motivation should not be purely voluntary. Second, there must be a clear demand for farmers to implement agroecological methods. Third, farmers should have access to the necessary resources and skills to carry out these practices effectively. Finally, it is essential that agroecological farming is legitimised and not constrained by governmental regulations or social norms. In the case of Western Europe, these conditions have not been explored enough by the scientific community. Research on farmers’ experiences of transition to agroecology that is relevant for pasture-based livestock farmers in Western Europe is limited [21,28].

The current paper presents findings of a qualitative, narrative study of farmers from the IE, the UK and France who had not only implemented pro-environmental measures on their farms but also had transitioned to an agroecological farming system. Our research focuses on the social, economic, and cultural aspects of agroecology-based food systems in the IE, the UK, and France. It combines the generation of scientific knowledge with local insights of mostly pasture-based livestock farmers. The success of agroecology depends on our ability to bridge the gap between expectations and the realities faced by farmers. Thus, by understanding and addressing these differences, we can foster a more effective and sustainable approach to agricultural practices.

A narrative interviewing approach was utilised, inspired by aspects of the Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM) [29,30] to explore how interview participants made meaning of their experiences and how their combined experiences shaped their values, perspectives, etc., relevant to their choices to transition to agroecology. Understanding the experiences of these farmers is important for identifying the types of factors that are likely to influence the uptake of agroecological measures among other farmers. The results provide important insights for policymakers, farm advisors and officers in the field, as well as material for scientific communication in promoting agroecology in Western Europe, encouraging climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity recovery and broader environmental management. Furthermore, our research on European farmers’ experiences of agroecology is in line with agroecological research priorities presented by INRAE researchers to scale up agroecology in Europe [31]. In the following sections, we provide the policy context for case-study countries (Section 2); explain methods and the conceptual framework (Section 3); present the results (Section 4); present the discussion (Section 5); and finally, provide the conclusions (Section 6).

2. Policy Context

The interviews presented in this study were conducted between October 2020 and July 2021, before the introduction of the new EU CAP and the UK Agricultural Transition Plan. In the following paragraphs, we will present the relevant policy approaches to pro-environmental diversification and agroecology in the EU and case-study countries that preceded the launch of these newer policies.

In 2017, approximately 25% of the EU’s functional agricultural area was subjected to Agri-Environmental Scheme (AES) contracts [32]. CAP reforms (2014–2020) introduced Greening Payments, a capped financial incentive encouraging European farmers to employ pro-environmental diversification measures and participate in AESs. However, these policies were found to have not always produced favourable impacts in terms of farmer income and environmental health, nor positive contributions to enhancing rural economies and societies, with findings across Europe suggesting that the efficacy of these measures is often place-dependent [33,34,35]. Although the greening scheme had the potential to promote the widespread change of farming practices to be more environmentally and climate-friendly in theory, policy design in operation and associated implementation practices of farmers did not fully unlock this potential.

In Europe, the potential of agroecology has been increasingly recognised and integrated into policy. Currently, the European Union recognises agroecology as a new sustainable agriculture approach. Agroecology is mentioned in major European strategies such as the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Biodiversity Strategy, the European Green Deal and the Nature Restoration Law. Because there are no national or international agroecology standards beyond the ten elements established by FAO [36] and the principles established by the High-Level Panel of Experts of the Committee on World Food Security [37], agroecology in EU documents is often regarded as a process and is associated with mixed crop-livestock production, organic production and agroforestry. As the EU has ambitiously committed to reducing methane emissions by 30% and overall GHG emissions by at least 50%, reducing the use of pesticides by 50% and fertilisers by 20%, increasing the agricultural area under organic farming to 25%, planting 3 billion trees and bringing back at least 10% of agricultural area under high diversity landscape features by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, improved promotion and more widespread acceptance of pro-environmental diversification measures, including agroecology, are highly necessary [1].

After leaving the EU in 2020, the UK launched the Agricultural Transition Plan to fully transition away from previous area-based payments for food production to new sustainable land management schemes based on payments for public goods, including nature recovery [38]. Moreover, in 2023, the UK’s government set a New Environmental Plan in which it commits to supporting 65–80% of landowners and farmers to adopt nature-friendly farming practices on at least 10–15% of their land by 2030. Farmers will also receive payments to take care of the natural countryside and environment alongside food production, and they are envisaged to contribute at least 50% of the target of bringing protected sites into favourable conditions. The UK has also made significant commitments to address climate change and biodiversity loss. It aims to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and has pledged to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. To achieve these ambitious targets, the Climate Change Committee (2020e) has projected that by 2050, around 21% of agricultural land will be needed for tree planting, agroforestry, and the expansion of farm hedges [39]. Forestry and agriculture in the UK are separately managed by the four countries, each with its own annual planting targets. However, these targets are not currently legally enforceable. Excluding Scotland, the UK and national governments have consistently failed to meet these crucial planting goals. The UK also has the smallest share of organic land among case-study countries—2.8%. Within it, England has the highest share of organic land, at 3.3%, and Northern Ireland has the lowest, at 0.7%. The Scottish government was the sole one in the UK to commit to doubling the amount of organic agricultural land by 2026.

On the other hand, France has the highest share of organic land among the case-study countries, at 10% [40] and aims to increase it to 18% by 2027. France was also the first European country to implement agroecology in the policy by launching the Agroecological Project for France in 2014, with the ambition to position France as a global leader in agroecology [41]. France’s CAP strategic plan contributes to the Green Deal’s objectives and carbon neutrality by promoting farm diversification, preservation of permanent grasslands, plant protein production, agroecology and organic farming. In 2023, France committed to planting 1 billion trees by 2030. Recent evidence indicates that France is among the top five countries in terms of the total extent of agroforestry [42].

In Ireland, since 2022, the number and diversity of schemes to support agroecological practice have significantly expanded to include area-based approaches, such as the Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme (ACRES), various environmental schemes within sectoral policies, and enhanced organic farming schemes [43]. Organic production in Ireland represents 4% of the utilisable agricultural area and has tripled compared to 2019. Among the targets set out in the Programme for Government is to achieve 7.5% of the total land area farmed organically by 2027, while the Climate Action plan targets 10% organic land area by 2030. In a ten-year Strategy for the Irish agri-food sector—The Food Vision 2030—Ireland ambitiously intends to become a world leader in Sustainable Food Systems. The strategy proposes higher diversification of Irish agriculture and the expansion of crops such as cereals and protein crops, horticulture, organic farming and agroforestry, as well as a plan to reduce Ireland’s dependence on imported protein crops.

Thus, it can be concluded that within the case-study EU countries, what can be defined as ‘strong’ agroecology is mainly supported by incentivising organic farming and agroforestry. These two farming systems require a systemic change of practices and put the One Health concept that advocates the health of the soil, plants, animals, humans and the planet at their core. Policy support for mixed farming was not found in any of the case-study countries [44]. The agri-environmental schemes offer support for farmers to implement pro-environmental diversification and reduce inputs; however, they rarely require an overall change in farming methods and, consequently, changes contributing to the sustainable transformation of the agri-food system.

A range of international studies, some of which include a focus on regions in the IE, the UK and France, reveal some of the factors that influence farmers’ engagement with and implementation of measures and actions that relate to pro-environmental diversification and agroecology [45,46,47]. Some previous studies within the IE, the UK and France have specifically examined farmers’ motivations for on-farm diversification [48,49,50]. However, in-depth behavioural investigations of European farmers’ engagement with agroecology, including agroecological transition, are scarce [31,51]. For transition to occur, farmers need to shift away from the idea of a planned production system that simply takes inputs and produces outputs. Instead, they move towards a more circular agroecosystem model, which not only produces agricultural goods but also provides other important services [52]. The transition involves making a long-term commitment and requires redefining performance and professional norms [31].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Conceptual Framework

Since the Green Revolution, the production-driven farming model has been predominant in Europe; however, other models have emerged, including the new peasantry, which is strongly connected to agroecology.

Many of the family farmers in Europe are direct descendants of peasants who, over generations, have cultivated agricultural traditions and possessed a wealth of ecological knowledge that was usually local, collective, long-term, and holistic. The dynamic process of transformation over time has led to contrasting trends, including the rise of the previously mentioned ‘new’ peasantry and, on the other side, entrepreneurial and capitalist farmers, three main socio-technical groups as defined by van der Ploeg [52].

New peasants not only aim to decrease their reliance on external inputs and enhance their autonomy but also demonstrate a strong capacity for innovative productivity through experimentation and intellectual work that allows the consolidation, strengthening and extension of social networks, the creation of new infrastructure (retailing, care facilities, agro-touristic facilities) and contributions to the protection and improvement of the natural environment [7,53].

In his book ‘The Sociology of Farming’, van der Ploeg presents a comprehensive framework to identify different farming styles [52]. He defines a style of farming as ‘a strategy that informs and guides the organisation and development of the farm’. Van der Ploeg describes the peasant condition as having six characteristics: co-production with nature; construction and maintenance of a self-controlled and autonomous resource base (land, fertility, labour, capital); differentiated relations with diversified markets and the outside world allowing for autonomy; pursuit of livelihood related to the reproduction of the family unit; pluri-activity; and cooperation and relations of reciprocity [54]. These conditions align significantly with the principles and practices of agroecology, but furthermore, when the set is considered as a whole, there is a marked political orientation to the motivations underpinning how the combined social, economic and environmental actions are taken in deliberate resistance to the dominant agri-food system. As Milone and Ventura [55] describe, the new peasants who are operating and gaining visibility in contemporary agriculture have strategies consistent with the established peasant mode of farming globally, but they are often connected with sectors and interests outside of traditional agriculture and with the use of modern infrastructure, such as Information and Communications Technology. They demonstrate the capacity to innovate in a collaborative, multi-actor way, and they are driven by a commitment to principles which align distinctly with agroecology—‘the co-production of man and living nature (and therefore to a balance between the two), the balance between production and reproduction (which relates to the relative autonomy of the farm), and the balance between internal and external resources [7,54,55]. Operating in conscious opposition to the dominant agri-food system, they demonstrate ‘tenacity, stubbornness and a belief in their own capacities and abilities’ [55]. Such observations, which are consistent with a range of studies focusing on the new peasantry, are inevitably implicated in the research question of this paper which seeks to understand the processes that shape farmers’ decisions to establish agroecological systems. Furthermore, their motivations and the forms of innovativeness they achieve in their efforts are of interest and consequence to society in the context of sustainability challenges and offer inspiration in how to respond effectively through policy and extension [56].

Similarly, in response to the industrialisation of the food system, processes conceptualised as peasantisation and repeasantisation have become more popular among family farmers and address the struggle for autonomy, decommoditisation and the search for local solutions to global problems. All these actions support the expansion of agroecology [53]. Therefore, both new peasantry and agroecology concepts offer useful conceptual frameworks for this study to engage with experiences of change and transformation into agriculture, where farmers take care of the environment and nature through low-input solutions to supply local markets.

The agroecology movement originates in Latin America, which has a strong presence of peasant agriculture, and the term agroecology has started to appear in European policy relatively recently. Nonetheless, for decades, many small European farmers (arguably peasant farmers) have opposed the globalised food system and growing dependency on external inputs. Even though widespread, this pro-agroecological movement in Europe remained hidden and unnoticed; thus, in the scientific literature, this European phenomenon is referred to as ‘silent agroecology’ [57]. The ongoing but silent process of adopting agroecology by European farmers has not been straightforward, which explains why there are no clear-cut boundaries between agroecological and conventional farming (in official statistics, for example). This invisibility, combined with varying starting points of different farmers in setting on the agroecological pathway, results in highly diverse empirical realities. The diversity of European farmers’ transition experiences towards agroecology has not been well studied and, as such, deserves careful analysis and discussion [7].

According to Edelman and Borras, [58] agroecology is gaining global recognition as a critical theory that challenges industrial agriculture. It provides the foundation for developing economically efficient, socially just, and ecologically sustainable food systems. As a social practice, agroecology is showcased through the diverse forms of resistance and creative strategies employed by farmers to establish autonomy from input and labour markets [59]. As a social movement, agroecology mobilises individuals involved in its development, as well as a growing number of people, advocating for social justice, collective health, food and nutritional sovereignty, solidarity, ecological economy, gender equity, and balanced rural–urban relations [10,15,25,53,60]. It is important to mention that although agroecology partly overlaps with organic agriculture, it extends beyond it [7]. Thus, agroecology—like the peasant style of agriculture—combines analytical, operational, and political aspects, creating a coherent and integrated approach.

Table 1. Key similarities and differences between the concepts of agroecology and the new peasantry.

Aspect	Agroecology	New Peasantry
Core principles	Sustainable use of local resources; biodiversity for ecosystem services and resilience; participatory, transdisciplinary research; and solutions providing environmental, economic, and social benefits.	Farming with autonomy, resilience; deliberate resistance to industrialised agriculture, working with rather than against nature, providing diversity of product to local markets, mutual support; reduced inputs.
Social and Political Goals	Advocating for food sovereignty, defending family farms and smallholder agriculture, promoting local markets, and resisting the dominant industrial agri-food system.	Resistance to industrialised agriculture, focus on local solutions to global challenges, and deliberate innovation for socio-economic autonomy.
Scale and Scope	Holistic focus on the entire food system, from soil management to societal organisation, aiming to integrate environmental, economic, and social dimensions at multiple scales (local to global).	Primarily focused on farm-level autonomy and community resilience, with implications for broader socio-political resistance against the global industrialised food system.
Relationship to Environment	Co-production with nature to maintain balance. Use of local renewable resources and biodiversity to enhance ecosystem services and resilience. Holistic approach connecting soil, ecosystems, and communities.	Co-production with nature; emphasis on autonomy over resources (land, fertility, labour, capital). Resistance to dominant agri-food systems through local and low-input solutions.
Agency and Motivation	A movement driven by collective action, advocacy, and principles of sustainability, equity, and justice in food systems.	Individual and collective agency rooted in “tenacity” and “stubbornness,” driven by belief in capacity to resist, adapt, and innovate within the constraints of industrialised agriculture.
Education and Knowledge	Emphasises participatory, transdisciplinary, and action-research methods. Promotes diverse knowledge systems, including indigenous and scientific methods.	Integration of traditional farming knowledge with modern innovations. Collaboration with diverse actors to innovate and adapt to challenges. Sharing knowledge through cooperation and reciprocity in communities.

highlights the complementary nature of agroecology and the new peasantry, both of which emphasise autonomy, sustainability, and resistance to industrial agriculture while offering frameworks for transforming farming practices and food systems.

3.2. Methodology

The research conducted for this paper involved in-depth narrative-based interviews with case-study actors undertaking activities that fall under the general category of ‘pro-environmental diversification’. The term pro-environmental diversification was used for interviewee identification and selection purposes, principally because the term ‘agroecology’ is not in common use and because it was likely that interviewees’ farming activities would not entirely fulfil the full range of social, economic and environmental functions that constitute agroecology. We sought to explore farmers’ experiences of transitioning towards agroecological practices and the more general term, pro-environmental diversification, is used to describe more accurately the practices that interviewees were employing in that process of transition.

Interview participants (n = 29) were farmers from the IE (n = 15), UK (n = 7), and France (n = 7) who had implemented on-farm diversification activities, which could include activities that were potentially beneficial towards environmental remediation, biodiversity promotion, and/or climate change mitigation on pasture-based livestock farms. Fifteen participants were selected in Ireland because the project for which this research was conducted was predominantly an Irish study funded by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency. Additional interviews were conducted in the UK and France to widen the lens and seek interesting comparisons and contrasts. The UK interviewees were located in Scotland (n = 3), England (n = 2), and Wales (n = 2). All participating farmers from France were from the Atlantic provinces of Brittany, Normandy and Pays de la Loire, which have similar climatic conditions as the UK and IE. This allowed for some degree of consistency and avoided significant variations in the interviewees’ narratives specific to climatic conditions. It is important to note that this paper focuses primarily on farmers’ experiences of transitioning towards agroecology, with less emphasis on the details of the farming practice, which are described elsewhere [47]. A schematic of the participant selection protocol is presented in Figure 1.

Farmers were contacted and informed of the study primarily through agricultural organisations in each country where farmers were interviewed. The organisations, comprising government-sponsored and non-governmental agri-environmental agencies, regional farming cooperatives and local farmers’ associations, circulated a project-related cover letter and flyer among their members via email and social media advertisements. Outside of the recruitment strategy that involved these organisations, 17 farmers were contacted directly based on internet searches and directly by email, while 29 farmers were contacted through organisations; in total, 46 farmers were contacted (Figure 1). Upon receipt of study information, eligible farmers expressing an interest were asked to contact researchers working on the project via email or telephone. Subsequently, they were provided with an information pack outlining the project objectives. To qualify as eligible for inclusion in the research, prospective participants were required to be implementing pro-environmental agricultural diversification practice/s on their farms. Only pasture-based dairy and/or beef farmers and mixed livestock-crop farmers who had introduced pro-environmental diversification were chosen for this study, which was consistent with the specific focus of the larger project that this research contributed to.

To understand the profile of participants and gain further information on the participants selected for interviews, all interviewees were invited to complete a short electronic survey. The survey was hosted on the online platform Qualtrics, where they provided basic socio-demographic and professional details, including age, education, geographical location and farm size. Before the survey, participants were informed of data handling procedures. Random case numbers were assigned to each participant prior to analysis (see

Table A1. Participant case numbers and corresponding farming type.

Country	Case ID	Farming Type	Farming Enterprise	Gender
Republic of Ireland	11F	Mixed organic	Beef, lamb	Female
	14W	Mixed organic	Beekeeping, crops, lamb	Female
	15D	Organic animal	Beef, lamb	Male
	16L	Organic animal	Beef, lamb	Male
	18R	Organic animal	Beef	Male
	19P	Mixed organic	Beef, crops	Male
	1S	Non-organic animal	Beef, lamb	Male
	21O	Organic animal	Beef	Male
	22F	Mixed organic	Beef, chicken, crops	Female
	27T	Organic animal	Dairy	Female
	28Z	Mixed organic	Beef, crops	Male
	2J	Mixed organic	Beef, crops, pig	Male
	5A	Organic animal	Beef, dairy	Male
	7L	Non-organic animal	Beef, dairy	Male
	8E	Non-organic animal	Beef, dairy	Female
United Kingdom
England	12A	Organic animal	Beef, lamb	Female
Wales	23N	Organic animal	Beef, lamb	Female
Scotland	29G	Organic animal	Dairy	Male
England	30E	Organic animal	Beef	Male
Wales	3B	Mixed organic	Beef, crop, lamb, pig	Female
Scotland	4D	Non-organic animal	Beef, lamb	Male
Scotland	9M	Non-organic mixed	Beef, crops, lamb	Male
France	12W	Mixed organic	Crops, lamb	Male
	13N	Mixed organic	Crops, dairy	Female
	25X	Mixed organic	Crops, dairy, chicken	Female
	30L	Mixed organic	Chicken, crops	Male
	4T	Mixed organic	Beef, crops, lamb	Male
	6A	Organic animal	Beef, chicken, lamb, pig	Male
	8F	Organic animal	Beef, chicken	Male

). Prior to the commencement of the study, a research ethics protocol was submitted to and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Agriculture and Food Science at University College Dublin (serial number: LS-20-52-Markiewicz). Prospective interviewees were provided with participant information sheets, and they signed consent forms. Interviews were conducted by researchers trained in qualitative research methods and were carried out over eight months (October 2020–July 2021). Interviews were undertaken via Zoom™ (online, open-access videotelephone chat service) due to physical restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymised. The average interview length was 58 min, the shortest interview lasted 20 min, the longest 82 min. Respondents in France were given a choice to undertake interviews in French or English, with four of seven French farmers opting to be interviewed in French. Interviews carried out in French were translated into English by a professional translator.

The case-study interviews were conducted using a narrative-based approach—a qualitative interviewing technique used to induce a narrative account of an interviewee’s lived experiences [29,61]. The efficacy of narrative interviews in eliciting in-depth, subject-oriented biographical accounts has been validated across a range of intra- and interdisciplinary studies [62,63]. Narrative interviewing, following the Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM), seeks to elicit an uninterrupted narrative and is initiated by using an opening question referred to as a Single Question Aimed at Inducing Narrative (SQUIN) [29]. An appropriately composed SQUIN invites the interview participant to explain in narrative form what is important to them, with subsequent, optional phases of the interviewing process involving questions phrased to expand upon participant-generated sub-narratives and study themes [29,61].

Derived from the approach of the BNIM, a SQUIN was designed to elicit a narrative of lived experiences regarding the topic of pro-environmental farming practices. Having been selected for the interview, all interviewees had considered and engaged in pro-environmental practices, and the study aimed to explore their experiences of considering and engaging in the new practices. The SQUIN, thus, was worded as follows:

I’m a researcher who is interested in farm diversification, climate change and the environment. Could you tell me the story of your farming experience over the years, all the changes that you have seen and experiences that you have had; how it all has been?

Central terms such as pro-environmental diversification or agroecology were deliberately excluded from the SQUIN to minimise jargon and encourage participants to describe environmentally beneficial diversification actions in their own words. Following the BNIM, question auxiliaries (“tell me the story” and “how it all has been”) were used to divert participants from focusing exclusively on single or historically recent events. After responding in extended narrative form in response to the SQUIN, interviewees were asked follow-up questions to expand upon experiences and events they had mentioned (in the chronology they had used in describing them).

For qualitative analysis of the transcripts of the narrative interviews, two authors undertook active reading and re-reading of the transcripts to enable data familiarisation and facilitate consistency in coding. Overall, a qualitative description approach [64] was taken in the analysis. The qualitative description approach aims to provide a rich description of the data [65] and offers the opportunity to gain detailed descriptions of a phenomenon and related phenomena, about which little may be known. The approach enables readers to interpret the data in relation to the theme of the paper in which they are presented but also to draw linkages between the data and other phenomena outside of the theme under study [66]. The presentation of data using qualitative description builds the expertise of scholars but also presents data in sufficient detail that is useful to practitioners, including educators, extensionists, and policymakers [64]. An advantage of qualitative description, pioneered by Sandelowski [64], is that it provides the reader with accurate insights into the ‘experiences, events and processes’ from the research participants’ perspectives. Using the approach, the researcher strives to stay close to the “surface of the data and events” [64], in the sense that events and experiences are described from the viewpoint of the participants [65]. Narrative data are particularly compatible with a qualitative descriptive approach because descriptions of the experiences of participants generate context-dependent knowledge, enabling future hypothesis and theory-building [67,68] In this paper, the results are discussed by applying relevant lenses from the existing literature, specifically in relation to the emergence of a new peasantry, contributing to the development and expanding of new theories in that particular field.

In our implementation of the qualitative descriptive approach, data analysis for thr presentation of results was conducted using standard thematic analysis [69]. Codes were initially established and advanced into themes used to structure the presentation of experiences emerging in the narrative data under thematic headings. The analysis did not involve ranking the themes in order of importance or significance. Instead, the analysis focused on how the themes manifested in the data, their interrelationships and how they were relevant to the phenomena under study [62]. The experiences of interviewees identified in the reading and re-reading of the transcripts were sought to be presented under coherent themes relating to all of the narrative interviews (in different ways and to greater and lesser extents), rather than presenting the narratives one by one.

Interviews were analysed using NVIVO 12 Plus (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2018) qualitative data analysis software (QDAS). Anonymised interview transcripts were uploaded to the software and initially categorised based on respondents’ professional backgrounds and farming practices prior to formal coding. The annotations tool (enabling the selection of important quotes based on authors’ readings of the transcripts) was employed to refine the coding structure and inform the hierarchy of codes. Codes were stored in NVIVO as nodes (units of storage for code titles and content) in correspondence with the hierarchy (thematic structure). The thematic map of interview themes and subthemes presented in the current study is presented in Figure 2.

4. Results

The initial survey results that sought to profile the socio-demographic and farming characteristics of interviewees who participated in this research are presented in

Table 2. Socio-demographic and farming characteristics of interview participants.

Variable	Variable Categories	Frequency (%)
Country	Republic of Ireland	15 (52)
	United Kingdom	7 (24)
	France	7 (24)
Gender	Male	19 (66)
	Female	10 (35)
Age	26–35 years	3 (10)
	36–45 years	8 (28)
	46–55 years	9 (31)
	56–65 years	5 (17)
	>66 years	4 (14)
Education	Junior Certificate or GCSEs (FR. Brevet)	2 (7)
	Leaving Certificate or A-Levels (Baccalauréat)	2 (7)
	Higher Certificate or Diploma (Baccalauréat Professionnel)	6 (21)
	Third Level Bachelor’s Degree (Licence)	10 (35)
	Postgraduate Degree Masters or PhD	9 (31)
No. years in farming	1–10 years	19 (66)
	11–20 years	4 (14)
	>20 years	6 (21)
No. years organic farming	1–10 years	13 (52)
	11–20 years	4 (16)
	>20 years	8 (32)

. Mean farm sizes were 68 ha for Ireland, 266 ha for the UK and 133 ha for France. The smallest farm (12 ha) was in Ireland, while the largest (440 ha) was in the UK. According to governmental statistics in case-study countries, the national averages for farm size are 32.3 ha, 88 ha and 69 ha in the IE, the UK and France, respectively. Of the 29 respondents interviewed for the current study, 79% (n = 23) identified as organic farmers (Figure 3A). The distribution of farmers across case-study regions is presented in Figure 3B.

Approximately one-third of interviewed farmers (n = 11) reported beginning their careers in agriculture within the last ten years (Table 2). With respect to farming background, 66.5% (n = 19) of respondents reported growing up on a family farm, while 34.5% (n = 10) reported being new entrants to farming, i.e., not having a family background in agriculture. Of the 16 respondents who transitioned to pro-environmental farming from conventional/high-input farming, 13 reported a family background in farming. Participants’ case numbers and corresponding farming types are presented in Appendix A (Table A1).

The analysis of the narrative interviews revealed that the most frequently cited motivator to engage in pro-environmental farming practices was environmental protection. Although several farmers cited climate change mitigation as a motivating factor, it was often seen as a secondary benefit to environmental protection and biodiversity promotion. In addition to environmental health and climate change mitigation, farmers also frequently cited biodiversity promotion, finance, ethical food production, quality of life, social cohesion (strengthening relationships and the sense of solidarity among community members), self-reliance, animal welfare and political activism as motivating factors in choosing the transition to agroecology. Narratives distinct to agroecological principles emerged in the data. The pursuit of an autonomous and sustainable food production system that reduces and eliminates dependence on external inputs and dependencies was described by farmers as a journey that had the following themes: profitability, ethical food production, conscientisation (events or happening that resulted in a change of perspective), activism and social values, and knowledge acquisition.

4.1. Profitability

Overall, 23 interviewees discussed their farms’ economic viability. When outlining any financial benefits accrued by the transition to agroecology, respondents primarily focused on the provision of monetary grants for AES participation and the reduction of input costs. These benefits were attributed particular importance by organic beef farmers and those who initially practised high-input intensive agriculture. Referring to their transition to organic beef farming and conservation-based livestock grazing, 12A (UK) noted:

When you added in the (pro-environmental) cattle enterprise, the total from the two farming enterprises (cattle and sheep) had grown to about £30,000, which isn’t amazing but at least contributed to our investment. In terms of the return on my time, there had been a vast improvement. We’re actually receiving essentially £30,000 for 40 h a week’s worth of work, which is a much better return than the £12,000 for 80 h a week work that I was doing previously.

12A, UK

Farmers across the three regions (n = 23) referred to specific forms of agricultural diversification. The most cited activities included: on-farm food processing (e.g., preparation of juices, cheese, sausages), direct sales, self-catering, and farm tours. Irish participants (n = 3) also recognised the financial benefits of having part of their land under forestry as a good financial investment and starting point for their future heirs.

Off-farm employment was mentioned by five farmers from the IE and two farmers from the UK. Farmers with off-farm employment reported that it gave them an advantage over other farmers and that they perceived the additional income as a tool to obtain financial security, allowing them to take more risks when implementing innovations in farming. The importance of both on- and off-farm diversification for the future of farming was summarised by farmer 30E from the UK:

It’s quite clear that farmers are in a situation where the harder they farm, the more they push for yields, the more fertiliser and feed they buy then the more they are undermining their ability to make a genuine return on their investment; less is more. You have to ease back on all the inputs and that will free up time and resources… and you may need to go and generate some income off farm from doing other things, but it would be a lot better than just pouring money down the drain trying to make the thing stand on its own two feet in a farming sense when it is never going to.

30E, UK

The importance of input reduction was mentioned by 21 interviewees, with perceived benefits primarily associated with economic savings and environmental advantages. Participants also mentioned that knowing what production level aligned with the farm’s productive capacity was essential to becoming independent of chemical inputs and purchasing livestock feed. Input reduction via decreased or discontinued use of fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and concentrated feeds was cited by 13 interviewees. Additionally, seven interviewees, of which four were from France, spoke about their efforts to decrease the use of fossil fuels and reduce spending on machinery. Actions taken to achieve these goals included reorganising farm operations and using manual or horse-power where possible. A French farmer (4T) described their experiences in reducing machinery and fossil fuel usage as follows:

We use really simple equipment and we’re really low infrastructure, got hardly any machines, one simple tractor, some simple equipment for haymaking. We started bale grazing last winter, so, you know, rolling out the hay outside so I don’t have to turn the tractor on, we stop the tractor in October and then the hay just sits there all winter, I have to turn it over now and again.

4T, FRA

Self-reliance was an important aspect mentioned by 16 farmers. A French farmer (25X) explained what self-sufficiency means for them and why it is crucial:

Being self-sufficient doesn’t mean that we’re going to be living away from the people around us, we are autonomous in the territory, at the territory scale. But we don’t want seeds to come from hundreds of kilometres away, we don’t want to be depending on fossil fuel or nuclear energy, and we want to be able to build our tools or fix them by ourselves when necessary and if necessary, we want to be self-sufficient in terms of water, because we know that with climate change, water is going to be the main struggle in the coming years.

25X, FRA

Direct sales were indicated as an activity assisting farmers in achieving self-sufficiency. All French farmers reported implementing direct sales within their business, compared to three British and eight Irish farmers. Direct sales were realised through several channels, including farmers’ markets, internet sales, on-farm stores/selling points and organic farming networks. Interviewees indicated several benefits of the direct selling model, with independence and price control mentioned as major advantages.

If I was selling everything to cooperatives (…) I wouldn’t control my prices, and then they’d say “you have to do this and that”, and they’d say “we need you to produce this much a year”, so then you can’t have two productions, because they want you to have one production, and then you don’t control things.

4T, FRA

Opinions on lobbies and large companies were shared by thirteen Irish farmers, four French farmers, and three British farmers. Farmers reported that chemical and processing industries represent a barrier to implementing agroecology at scale. Participants mentioned that the food processing industry puts considerable pressure on farmers with respect to pricing, with farmers always representing the “weakest link” in the food chain. According to interviewees, large industry is not interested in identifying nature-based solutions that would lead to reduced sales. Participants talked about a trap whereby corporate systems convince farmers that they must use external inputs to increase profits. An Irish farmer (14W) described their observations of this “cycle of dependency” as follows:

The other thing is that there are vested interests involved in agriculture and there are quite close relationships between fertiliser companies, seed merchants and all the people providing inputs to farmers, selling machinery and spray machinery, slurry spreaders and all those. There is quite a well-organised system to incentivise, encourage farmers to purchase these things and to use them. I know a lot of commercial farmers who truly believe their grass will not grow without nitrogen. And in some ways they’re right because Italian perennial ryegrass does need nitrogen to grow up but there are lots of other grasses that grew in Ireland for centuries and kept animals alive perfectly well for a very long time that weren’t Italian perennial ryegrass.

14W, IE

Even though farmers talked about lobbies and the need to transform the current agro-food system, they rarely related to politics and politicians directly. French farmers made the most digressions to existing policy and politics in general, while the majority of UK and Irish farmers did not openly comment on the politics.

4.2. Ethical Food Production

In their narrative stories, many farmers alluded to contemporary food systems. Twenty-one interviewees across all three regions cited ethical food production as an important motivator to pursuing pro-environmental agricultural diversification and transition to agroecology. Producing healthy, nutritious food for their families and the local community was an important motivation, with interviewees often questioning conventional food production systems whereby farmers do not consume the food they produce. A participant from the UK (3B) described their concerns as follows:

(…) there’s a massive disconnect between food and farming. And it is a problem with farmers as much as the general public, like it’s such a shame that lots of farmers don’t have their own meat in their freezers or their own milk.

3B, UK

Knowing the consumers of their products, being transparent and having an open farm were mentioned as important factors by 17 interviewees. The importance of customers’ local/regional pride concerning food provenance was indicated by seven, five and three French, UK and Irish participants, respectively. The significance of locally produced food for French customers was mentioned not only by French interviewees but also by an Irish farmer who tried to export their beef to France (5A, IE).

UK and Irish interviewees shared similar observations on perceived low awareness among customers from their countries on the environmental and health impacts of processed, cheap, and frequently imported products available from shops and supermarkets. However, it was noted by interviewees from all three countries that the first COVID-19 lockdown compelled people to prepare their food at home rather than purchase quick lunches or dine out, thus increasing the awareness of food production, food availability (especially when products became scarce due to gaps in the global food system due to the pandemic), and hence the value of local products.

These results highlight how the motivations and perspectives of farmers align closely with the growing consumer awareness of ethical and local food production, demonstrating a shared recognition of the need for greater transparency, sustainability, and reconnection between food producers and consumers within modern food systems.

4.3. Conscientisation, Activism and Social Values

Farmers citing environmental protection and biodiversity promotion as factors in choosing to diversify expressed a sense of stewardship and personal responsibility towards safeguarding nature. These resulted from experiences of repeated on-farm observations and associated realisations of the functional efficacy of agroecological farming methods. While farmers were able to identify defining moments underlying these motivations, they often presented a sequence of events and framed their subsequent decisions as the culmination of a journey. Farmer 2J (IE) described this:

It really has been a journey of learning and connecting with nature. For me, going forward, I want to connect more with my local community and enhance biodiversity on the farm and leave that as a legacy for the next generation. We as farmers need to think about other people in society. There are social responsibilities in relation to protecting the soil, biodiversity, water and air.

2J, IE

All respondents who entered agriculture from a non-farming background emphasised lifestyle change and pre-existing interests in organic food production and/or nature conservation as factors influencing their decisions. In particular, new-entrant farmer interviewees from France highlighted the benefits of eco-conscious farming for personal and collective well-being. In recounting their decision to pursue farming as a means of fulfilling their environmental principles, 30L described their experience as follows:

In a city context, you get all these issues thrown in your face… You get this climate change narrative that human beings are bad and should do less bad. If you’re a bit eco-minded like I was, you do everything by bike, get angry at people riding in cars, stop eating meat, things like that… but at some point I realised it wasn’t working and wasn’t making me happy. I wanted to do something more proactive, and I looked for ways to do that but couldn’t find them in the city.

30L, FRA

An overarching message that came forth among all 29 participants was that farmers had a social responsibility to protect the environment and the future of future generations (i.e., environmental custodianship). A French farmer (12W) described how they put this concept into action:

We’re trying to do things right, have clean fields, and inspire our neighbours to do the same and see if this model works. So in this way, we’re activists, for the planet, for our environment, in the face of climate change. As farmers, we work with living things, and so we have to be role models for future generations.

12W, FRA

Being conducive towards fostering community relationships via direct-to-consumer sales and citizen education was highly valued by farmers from France and the IE. Farmer 16L (IE) articulated this viewpoint in the case of small farms:

I grew up on a small family dairy farm and all the neighbours had very similar models. I remember silage making time being a serious community effort. I could see all that slipping away as the machinery got bigger and more efficient… but it was really a privilege to witness the power of smaller farms and community integration. I’m not trying to recreate something that’s outdated—it’s just that there’s value in a small farm that adds value to the community.

16L, IE

Being actively engaged in educational activities to promote agroecology was considered important by 17 farmers. Educational actions undertaken by the interviewees were primarily centred around giving talks about their farms to visitors, local and international communities, engaging with local media, creating knowledge transfer audio-visual content showcasing agroecological farming methods, and providing advice to other farmers. A farmer from Ireland (2J) described their experience in promoting pro-environmental diversification:

There is a huge opportunity there to raise that awareness, whether, with students or business people, you need to bring them out into nature and engage them by the river bank. I have actually submitted an application to provide training to 14 different communities in my county in 2021 around the rivers. I and a colleague, and hopefully we will engage the local authority waters officer, and maybe some water scientists will really do our best to connect people with our local streams and give them a passion for them.

2J, IE

All respondents identified at least one unique event, which changed their perspective or brought about a new awareness, which they cited as having an impact on their decision to transition to agroecology. Most farmers cited experiences on their own farms as triggering events. Farmers additionally recalled experiences in other professions, e.g., construction, nature conservation, visits to other farms, educational course participation and involvement in agri-environmental schemes as triggers. Farmers’ decisions were frequently prompted by interpersonal interactions as opposed to print or electronic information channels.

Almost all farmers with a family background in farming (n = 18) referenced negative on-farm observations such as reduced profit margins, soil deterioration, biodiversity loss and family health concerns as triggering factors for considering pro-environmental diversification. Farmer 22F (IE) recounted their decision to convert to organic farming after observing the harmful impact of fertiliser sprays:

We had a tunnel where we used to grow lettuce; it wasn’t the organic system, it was ordinary sprays. I had the children small at the time. I remember going in one evening after spraying and, just before we planted our lettuce, I said to myself, ‘could this be right’, and the smell took my breath. I said, ‘we have to change this’. So that’s why we changed it.

22F, IE

Of those farmers who did not have an agricultural background, decisions to pursue pro-environmental agriculture were consistently attributed to off-farm experiences (e.g., education, travel) related to a prior profession. The transformative impact of off-farm experiences was most frequently referred to by French farmers within this category. As shown by 4T, these experiences fostered an independent approach to farming:

When you’re working with reptiles in captivity you have these terrariums, these enclosures where you recreate an environment. And there are also different functions in their environment, using live plants, so you had to work out the lighting and the ultraviolet, and you had to work out the humidity and so it was really interesting. And then I don’t know what happened but at some point it clicked in me that you could do that on a farm, you can do that sort of thing on a farm!

4T, FRA

Among farmers in the IE who converted to agroecology from high-input, intensive farming systems, forms of interpersonal (farmer-to-farmer) learning were highly influential on the farmers. Farmers claimed that these interactions helped offset negative pre-conceived notions as they provided a first-hand example of the ecological and economic benefits of agroecology. Participant 21O demonstrated the merits of farm walks, for example, which influenced their decision to pursue pro-environmental diversification:

Being involved in farm walks gave me the confidence to finally change over to organic. I became very impressed with farm walks people. There were only about four or five dairy farmers in the country at the time that were organic. When I visited these farms, what I liked about them the most was that these people were thinking for themselves—how to work with their farm rather than try to change it.

21O, IE

4.4. Knowledge Acquisition

Two farmers commenced agroecological farming with prior education of or a family background in the practice. As such, knowledge acquisition represented an important factor underlying transition to agroecology and was often voluntary (as opposed to passive). Means of knowledge acquisition varied, with most farmers (n = 25) referring to multiple modes of acquisition. While participation in AES and, even more frequently, European Innovation Partnership Schemes (EIPs) were frequently mentioned as a way of gaining new knowledge, a similar number of farmers cited self-education. Formal information channels (i.e., university and professional courses) were infrequently cited. Farm visits and/or participation in agri-environmental schemes were considered key forms of knowledge acquisition by several Irish farmers. These modes of learning were regarded as integral towards stimulating conviction in decision-making—particularly where formal information channels were scarce.

Interview participants who entered farming with no prior agricultural experience believed that having a different frame of reference to succession farmers gave them a unique advantage in learning about agroecology. Self-education was given notable precedence by French farmers; 6A contended that a “conventional” farming family upbringing and education would have conditioned them accordingly:

I think that if I’d been trained and shaped in a mould, I would’ve followed the trend and would’ve been a conventional farmer. Even what we’re doing now is different to what we did 10 years ago. We’ve evolved towards our goal but we’ve also evolved compared to what we did in the beginning.

6A, FRA

A significant proportion of farmers (n = 22) mentioned attainment of at least one skill distinct from agriculture, such as engineering, food production and marketing. These respondents readily identified examples of knowledge transfer in recounting their diversification measures, indicating that upskilling was a vital process in implementing pro-environmental agriculture. Farmer 29G (UK) recalled the usefulness of their background in information technology:

You will know about knowledge transfer and organisations who are looking at comparing the economic side as well as the environmental side. My background is IT and that is what I was doing before this. When we started the new dairy enterprise, I had computerised data telling me what each cow was producing. We’ve got reports that will show us what a cow has been producing in the past versus what it is producing now.

29G, UK

In summary, interviewed farmers emphasised the importance of diversifying activities like on-farm food processing and direct sales to enhance economic stability. By cutting back on chemicals and machinery, many reduced costs and achieved both financial and environmental benefits. Some relied on off-farm jobs for extra income, enabling them to take more risks in farming. The results also indicate that ethical motivations inspired farmers to produce nutritious food for their communities, valuing transparency and local sources. Many viewed their shift to agroecology as a form of activism for biodiversity, sustainability, and future generations. They were also committed to educating their communities about the environment and food system. The majority of farmers learned through personal experience and farm visits. Off-farm experiences significantly shaped their approach to agroecology, with skills from previous careers enhancing their farming practices. While facing pressures from large agricultural industries and rising input costs, many farmers expressed a desire to create a more sustainable and self-reliant agro-food system. Moreover, interesting differences emerged with respect to phraseology based on farmers’ backgrounds. For instance, older (>55 years) succession farmers (those to whom the farm was transferred from the previous generation) in the current study were more likely to address negative occurrences (e.g., decreased biodiversity) or reference deep-seated values for the environment that they felt had been suppressed by high-intensive agricultural practices and/or CAP policies. Conversely, younger and/or new entry farmers tended to be more likely to reference lifestyle decisions (e.g., farming practices conducive to human and animal well-being, farming ethics) and existing environmental values.

5. Discussion

5.1. Silent Agroecology

While there is a body of research available on European farmers’ participation in agri-environmental schemes, new peasantry and agroecology are less known and understood [70,71,72,73,74]. In many English-speaking countries, ‘peasant’ is generally understood as a derogatory euphemism for ‘the poor’ [75]. However, more recently, peasant agriculture has been acknowledged as potentially highly productive, cost-effective and innovative, playing a vital role in protecting biodiversity and the natural landscape [76].

Peasant farmers predominantly focus on producing for local markets and self-consumption, relying heavily on the labour and nutrients available within their farms and communities [56], a modus operandi that was reflected in the narratives of farmers interviewed for this research. In contrast, conventional farmers embedded in entrepreneurial and capitalist approaches produce for the global market and depend on external inputs and seasonal workers [77]. The results of this study indicate the similarity between Western European new peasants and new peasants from Latin America and Australia [74,75]. In Europe, new peasants are also collectively resisting capitalism, aiming to take control of production and exit commodity supply chains in pursuit of social and ecological justice. The search for autonomy and a more just agri-food system distinguishes them from the majority of farmers, whose constraints pro-environmental diversification on their farms are typically motivated by and limited to participation in agri-environmental schemes [75]. Indeed, previous studies indicate that environmental practices implemented by conventional farmers were mostly confined to limited areas of the farm rather than being integrated to the entirety of farming activities, with limited impact on farm management practices overall [78,79,80].

By contrast, Lucas [57] found that French farmers who belong to local agricultural equipment cooperatives often provide agroecological services and, in fact, practice ‘silent’ agroecology. According to the author, by improving farm autonomy, these farmers reduce their inputs and consequently improve the environmental status of their farms. As such, they ‘silently’ contribute to the process of change towards a more diversified, less input-dependent—agroecological agrifood system. More research on the potentially ‘silent’ impacts of farmers’ participation in schemes and membership is needed in this regard.

The majority of farmers interviewed in this study embodied the characteristics of ‘new peasants’ as defined by van der Ploeg [56]. Although our interviewees did not explicitly use the terms “peasantry”, “agroecology”, or “food sovereignty”, their narratives consistently highlighted the importance of autonomy in the implementation of pro-environmental diversification. Gallardo-López et al. [10], in their review, also found that the pursuit of food security and sovereignty is a crucial aspect of agroecological social movement in Europe. This autonomy is often seen as a set of practices that leads to the production and reproduction of resources, allowing for self-organisation, reduction in inputs and environmental protection [53]. Furthermore, interviewees passionately advocated for a food system that maximises the positive interactions between people, farming and nature. Similarly, as in the research presented by Hutcheson et al. [21], their diverse farming approaches served as practical manifestations of these values, illustrating a commitment to sustainable practices and thoughtful agricultural development. This highlights their conscious contributions to the ‘silent’ but transformative European agroecology, which embodies an active critique of the political-economic structures shaping the current agro-food system and is dedicated to creating a more just and sustainable future by restructuring power relations from farm-to-table [81].

5.2. Agroecological Transition

In their study, Sutherland et al. [80] indicate that major changes in farming practice, such as conversion to organic farming, mainly occur in response to ‘triggering events’. Consistent with Sutherland et al. [80], we observed that for the majority of farmers, financial and environmental concerns, path dependency, and lock-in of contemporary agricultural practices led to conscientisation that initiated a process of change; however, succession was mentioned less frequently than in the study of Sutherland et al. [80].

Farmers who inherited farms frequently cited farmer-to-farmer learning, interpersonal exchanges or participation in AES or EIPs as triggers to pursue agroecology. Conversely, first-time farmers primarily cited pre-existing interests in practices relating to agriculture (e.g., food production, nature conservation) and personal ethics as primary motivators. Notably, several new-entrant farmers highlighted their belief that the skillsets acquired from previous professions or educational backgrounds gave them an advantage over farmers who inherited farms and insulated them from conventional, high-intensity agricultural rhetoric. This viewpoint was often accompanied by an activist mentality and a conviction that pro-environmental and organic farmers had a responsibility to educate the wider public about ecological conservation and principles of organic food production, again consistent with the principles of new/peasant agriculture. This ethos was particularly strong among farmers from France, who cited national preferences for organic food production and food sourcing as providing financial and social advantages. Given recent efforts made by the EU to attract prospective farmers to the profession via its New Entrants Policy, determinants of pro-environmental diversification among first-time farmers and associated regional differences may merit attention in future interventions promoting sustainable agriculture [82]. Moreover, multiple studies have noted that generational changes among farmers often occur more quickly in rural areas characterised by high educational attainment and high farm performance [83,84], features that are increasingly associated with farms operated by the new peasantry [55]. These differences indicate that generational factors and issues such as information accessibility, knowledge transfer, geographic isolation and social networks likely play a role in (re)shaping farmer values and motivations [85,86].

While implementing measures to mitigate climate change impacts was considered important by interviewees, the emphasis placed on specific actions promoted in agricultural campaigns (e.g., carbon capture) was notably weaker than their emphasis on actions specific to ecological restoration and biodiversity. However, new-entrant farmers tended to emphasise climate change more than farmers who inherited land and regarded it as a central part of their farming ethos. Differences regarding motivations (e.g., financial, social) among first-time and succession farmers have recently been reported [87,88] and reinforce the results of the current study.

Regarding education, our findings indicate that informal channels of education, such as books, YouTube videos and farm walks, were dominant sources of knowledge acquisition. Similar findings are presented by Hurley et al. [28], who interviewed farmers who engaged in agroecology in England and Hutcheson et al. [21], who studied the experiences of Scottish farmers. Although these media are invaluable for those who already engage in agroecology, they might be outside of the social realms or difficult to reach for those who are not yet engaged with these practices, including those who might be older, have less social and cultural capital, and might be socially or digitally isolated [28].

In order to broaden the accessibility of agroecology to a wider group of farmers, it may be necessary to supplement crucial peer-to-peer, farmer-led knowledge sharing with more formal training (possibly forming part of the mandatory training for farmers involved in schemes). This formal training could incorporate ‘living labs’ and facilitate engagement with the research community. According to Lacombe et al. [24], supporting the development of agroecology requires funding that will enable a connection between research-focused and support-focused approaches. Such strategy would entail sharing project leadership with farmers and organising co-design efforts with other actors (scientific, enterprise, etc.), and could help to better bridge the gap between theory and practice, ultimately facilitating the gradual redesign of farming systems over time. However, this endeavour may require a coordinating role from governmental authorities [28].

France introduced its first public education programme in organic agriculture in 1985. Initially, the programme was limited to a few agricultural schools and reached a small number of dedicated individuals [89]. After the implementation of the Agroecological Project for France in 2014, elements of agroecology were included in all curricula and diplomas, both in the ‘agricultural high-schools’ and in the ‘professional centres’ [89]. The process has been slower in Ireland, where the first 3rd-level education courses on organic farming and food security appeared only in the early 2020s. According to Alexander Wezel et al. [15], in 2018, there were seven, three and no research institutions designating agroecology in France, the UK and Ireland, respectively. In education, bachelor’s, master’s and PhD programmes in agroecology are also present in Europe again—mostly in France, Spain, Belgium and the UK [15].

In order to facilitate the agroecological transition in Europe, it is crucial to generate, combine, and exchange knowledge, which is itself a principle of the new/peasantry. This involves increasing recognition of existing practices and providing access to expertise, which is essential for building confidence in and recognition for developing farming and food systems based on agroecological principles. Despite the increasing availability of agroecology education in Europe, recent discussions on agroecology training and education have highlighted significant gaps [89]. It is proposed that new curricula should not only address the technical aspects of agroecology practices but also the triadic nature of agroecology (science, practice and social movement) through new forms of pedagogy, which enforces multidisciplinary and non-hegemonic attitudes and knowledge [89].

5.3. Economical Aspects of Agroecology

Peasant farming is often represented in scientific literature as being in opposition to “entrepreneurial farming”, characterised by large, specialised farms primarily financed through banking systems and highly dependent on external inputs [56]. Conventional, mainstream farming has been shown to be less resilient and more vulnerable to price volatility than smaller, more flexible peasant farms that have higher margins [76]. Our research indicates that the profitability of agroecology is evident through its capacity to reduce input costs, diversify income streams, and enhance financial independence. By transitioning to agroecological practices, farmers reported significant economic benefits, including reduced reliance on expensive chemical inputs, fossil fuels, and high-maintenance machinery. These savings were complemented by grants from agri-environmental schemes, particularly benefiting organic farmers and those moving away from intensive farming models. Additionally, agroecology’s focus on aligning production with the natural capacity of the land reduces the need for external inputs, enabling more sustainable and efficient operations. As highlighted by a UK farmer, easing back on high-input farming strategies significantly improved the financial returns on their time and labour. The practical success of agroecological models also lies in their adaptability. Farmers leveraging off-farm employment or diversifying through forestry investments demonstrated greater financial security and the ability to take calculated risks. These innovations contribute to long-term sustainability and resilience against economic and environmental challenges.

According to van der Ploeg et al. [7] there are solid theoretical reasons to support the hypothesis that agroecological agriculture entails a techno-economic model that promises to generate incomes comparable to, if not superior to, those obtained from conventional agriculture. Consequently, agroecology is particularly appropriate in helping farmers face adverse and deteriorating markets—and this explains the increasing attractiveness of agroecology to farmers.

The multifunctionality of farms is characteristic of the new peasantry and of the farmers who participated in this study. Farm multifunctionality was achieved by adding non-traditional roles supplementary to agricultural production, such as managing nature and landscape, protecting biodiversity, agritourism, afforestation and educational activities. To improve farm income and resilience, farmers also implemented actions such as conversion to an organic system, production of premium quality produce, on-farm processing, preparation of regional specialities, and direct sales. Previous studies have also reported a positive relationship between farm multifunctionality and environmental performance [90,91]. The role of gender in such processes of transformation has been noted by Byrne et al. [92] and the potentially powerful and innovative contributions of women to agroecological transitions require greater attention.

A recent study by Harkness et al. [93] also reports that greater agricultural diversity, engagement in environmentally sustainable farming practices, participation in agri-environmental schemes, and reduction in inputs, increase farm income stability in the UK. These factors were also shown to improve farms’ environmental impact, particularly in the case of dairy, general cropping, cereal and mixed farms [93]. Farmers’ engagement in alternative food networks, such as direct sales, was shown to be a positive predictor of work enjoyment and economic satisfaction [94]. However, as mentioned by multiple participants in the current study, organising direct sales is a labour-intensive process requiring additional skills in marketing, communications and social media, thus potentially representing a barrier, especially for the older generation of farmers.

Our results indicate that French farmers are more frequently involved with direct sales than their Irish and UK counterparts. This may be related to the share of organic agriculture in Ireland and the UK being among the lowest in Europe and lower than in France [25]. Cultural differences and French food patriotism likely play an important role in the more considerable success of direct sales reported by French farmers. Moreover, high specialisation and low diversification of Irish and UK farms likely result in a narrower range of products being offered by these farms. In the case of Ireland and the UK, farm shops/hubs integrating several local farmers supplying a wider product range may be more attractive than direct sales of just one or two commodities offered by a single farmer. According to Rivera et al. [95], the type of products produced on the farm influences its commercialisation strategy. Commodities produced by Irish and UK farmers are primarily milk and meat, which often require further processing and, thus, are mainly sold to cooperatives and processors. Potatoes, eggs and vegetables are not often produced by mixed livestock-crop British and Irish farmers participating in this study, and are more frequently sold locally through alternative pathways, including direct selling [95]. Meanwhile, Galliano and Siqueira [91], who investigated the relationship between a farm’s organisational design and environmental performance, revealed that developing alternative food supply chains, producing organic products or products with a quality label significantly and positively influenced the ecological performance of the farm. Promoting sustainable agri-food systems necessitates an increase in diversified food production, as well as the development of larger and more efficient logistics and distribution networks within local communities. It also requires that agroecological experiences be accessible to the spaces where decisions regarding the regulation and governance of food systems are made [27]. The role of collective efforts in communities, such as collaborative hubs for the development of short food chains, holds much promise in this regard; however, it was demonstrated that the success of these efforts is heavily influenced by government (in)action [43,82]. Research indicates that local food systems are most successful when collaborative processes are effectively supported [82]. Nevertheless, additional studies are necessary to better understand how governments can best guide, design, and foster these collaborative efforts.

The emphasis on on-farm diversification, such as direct sales, food processing, and agritourism, allows farmers to generate additional income while maintaining control over pricing and production decisions. This approach not only fosters self-sufficiency but also protects farmers from the financial pressures exerted by large industries and cooperative systems. For instance, direct sales empower farmers to bypass intermediaries, enhancing profit margins and independence from external market fluctuations.

6. Conclusions

Agroecology and the pro-environmental behaviours implemented in the transition towards achieving it remain a relatively new and unused concept in the literature and in practice. In the majority of European countries, civil society, consumers, and rural movements are currently the primary actors promoting the development of agroecological concepts as a viable alternative to the environmental and social issues associated with industrialised agriculture. Institutions and policies are largely lacking, and the legal framework for agroecology remains weak [11]. However, the evolution of discussions on the new peasantry and the active social movements that are driving it on the ground have the potential to give momentum to agroecology, which offers a coherent and holistic operational model for farmers to achieve sustainability. This paper has bridged the concepts of agroecology and the new peasantry, and the farmers interviewed for this research identified crucial and highly promising intersections between them. Illuminating this, the profile of farmers participating in our study mirrored the profile of successful and innovative young farmers in Italy who expressed a strong need for autonomy, which was achieved by reducing external inputs, direct sales, and shifting towards a circular economy [55]. Although the authors refer to the new peasantry characteristics of their interviewees, they do not use the term ‘agroecology’ in their paper. This indicates again a process of agroecological transition in Europe that is ‘silent’ and often not named or unidentified, yet one which has much potential.

The research presented in this paper shows that farmers who apply pro-environmental diversification and agroecological principles on their farms tend to align with the new peasant farming model. It is advantageous for both society and agriculture that policies seek to relate to and leverage the motivations and values of peasant farmers because these motivations and values hold much promise for the future sustainability of agriculture and because farmers are more likely to engage more enthusiastically and impactfully with such policies.

In their transitioning journeys, farmers from all three study locations described the importance of upskilling from prior or current secondary professions. While this would indicate that targeting professionals practicing occupations outside of agriculture might represent a more comprehensive communication strategy in attracting new farming entrants, the necessity of acquiring additional skills for pro-environmental, agroecological agriculture will also require dedicated support. Pathways and obstacles experienced by our interviewees in transitioning towards diversification varied based on the farming type and the contextual conditions of the agriculture in which they operated. However, a more thorough analysis of the different experiences of farmers in different European contexts is warranted, and this is an important area for future research. Furthermore, a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of the experiences of farmers operating different farming systems is needed.

Thus, this study indicates that regionally tailored policy interventions are likely to be justified in addressing regional variations across Europe. Actions and policies supporting knowledge exchange between conventional farmers who do and could potentially share greater new peasantry values and those who have already implemented agroecology on their farms could activate and inspire positive behavioural changes in conventional farmers. Overall, a range of insights can be gleaned from the perspectives presented through the qualitative descriptive approach in this paper by non-academic readers (e.g., policymakers, extensionists, educators) that can be of practical use in customising and adapting approaches to communicate with, engage with and support farmers in ways that are more relevant and useful from farmers’ perspectives.