Agroecology, the ABCs in UNI standard

By
Dario Dongo
-
0
389
FoodTimes_agroecology UNI standard

The Italian standardisation body UNI has developed a voluntary standard scheme UNI 1615303, aimed at standardising the terms that pertain to agroecology. The document – now subject to public consultation until 5 October 2025 – proposes a univocal definition of concepts developed from the FAO decalogue and the 13 principles defined by the HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition – FAO).

The definition of a common terminology responds to the intrinsic complexity of agroecology, which integrates scientific knowledge, traditional knowledge and agricultural practices, applying to different scales: from the management of individual crops to the planning of territorial systems.

A precise and flexible technical-scientific language – capable of facilitating dialogue between research, institutions, sector operators and consumers – is therefore necessary, as the UNI document emphasises, since agroecology itself ‘contemplates complexity and unpredictability‘.

Although the objective is to facilitate dialogue and promote transparency, the text that follows critically analyses the standard, highlighting how its alphabetical approach – in not distinguishing the different levels of agroecological transition and production methods – could potentially generate confusion and facilitate greenwashing practices.

Table of Contents

Agroecology, the international reference framework

The FAO and HLPE foundations

The document is based primarily on:

  • the 10 Elements of Agroecology approved by the FAO Council on 6 December 2019: Diversity, Co-creation and sharing of knowledge, Synergies, Efficiency, Recycling, Resilience, Human and social values, Culture and food traditions, Responsible governance, Circular economy (FAO, 2019);
  • the 13 Principles of agroecology developed by the HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition – FAO), which in turn provide a more articulated scientific basis that integrates technical, social and economic aspects.

The systemic approach proposed by the HLPE considers agroecology as ‘the ecology of the entire food system‘, including different levels of scale in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspective (HLPE, 2019).

The framework of Gliessman’s 5 levels: an evolutionary paradigm for agroecological transition

The framework of the 5 levels developed by Steve Gliessman represents one of the most influential conceptual schemes in contemporary agroecology, providing a roadmap structured for the ecological transition of agricultural systems. Gliessman, professor emeritus at the University of California Santa Cruz, developed this model through decades of applied research in different geographical and cultural contexts, from California to Mexico, from Costa Rica to Brazil (Gliessman, 2015).

UNI standard 1615303 explicitly integrates this evolutionary paradigm, recognising its value as a classification and understanding tool for the different phases of agroecological transition. The document presents a graphical representation that relates the 5 levels with the 10 FAO Elements and the 13 HLPE Principles, creating a three-dimensional conceptual matrix that highlights the complexity of the agroecological approach.

Level 0: starting point – no agroecological integration

Level 0 represents the starting point of the transition path, characterised by the absence of agroecological practices. This level corresponds to conventional industrial agricultural systems, characterised by high dependence on external inputs, extensive monocultures, intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, and little consideration for natural ecological processes.

An implicit reference to this level can be found in the UNI 1615303 document, in the definition of ‘intensive agriculture‘ as ‘a form of farming that aims for maximum production, often at the expense of environmental implications‘. This characterisation highlights the systemic criticalities that motivate the need for transition towards more sustainable approaches.

Level 1: efficiency increase – optimisation of input use

Level 1 is characterised by increased efficiency in the use of external inputs, whilst substantially maintaining the structure of the production system unchanged. According to Gliessman (2015), this level includes practices such as precision agriculture, optimisation of fertiliser application timing, the use of varieties that are more efficient at absorbing nutrients.

The Italian standard defines ‘precision agriculture‘ as ‘an agricultural production system based on a set of technologies that allows the variable distribution in time and space of production factors‘ (see also FAO, 2022). This definition expresses the essence of Level 1: the use of advanced technologies to optimise resource use without fundamentally modifying the production approach.

There are however some intrinsic limitations to this level. Efficiency optimisation can reduce environmental impacts per unit of product, but does not address the structural causes of dependence on external inputs. Furthermore, the technological approach can increase management complexity and investments, limiting its accessibility for small-scale enterprises.

Level 2: input substitution – from chemical inputs to biological alternatives

Level 2 represents a significant qualitative leap, characterised by substitution of synthetic chemical inputs with biological or natural alternatives. This level largely corresponds to organic agriculture as defined by European legislation and incorporated into UNI standard 1615303.

The standard defines ‘organic agriculture‘ by reference to ‘Regulation EU 2018/848 and subsequent modifications and integrations and the [Italian, ed.] law 9 March 2022, no. 23‘. This definition, whilst correct from a regulatory standpoint, does not fully encompass the diversity of possible approaches to Level 2, which also include agricultural practices not necessarily certified but oriented towards reducing synthetic chemical inputs.

Level 2 introduces fundamental concepts such as ‘biological control of pests/pathogens’, defined by the standard as ‘a complex of techniques based on the antagonistic action of arthropods, pathogens or other (micro)organisms aerial or telluric against biotic adversities of agricultural crops‘. This practice represents a paradigmatic example of the substitution of chemical inputs with natural biological processes.

Level 3: agroecosystem redesign – systemic integration

Level 3 represents a fundamental qualitative transformation, characterised by redesigning the agroecosystem to maximise natural ecological functions. At this level, attention shifts from optimising individual components to managing systemic interactions.

UNI standard 1615303 identifies this dimension by defining ‘agroecosystem’ as ‘an ecosystem modified by humans, in which the growth of species (plant and animal) is privileged which, following agronomic and zootechnical interventions, provide production evaluable in economic terms‘. This definition highlights the integration between productive objectives and ecological balance.

Characteristic elements of Level 3 include ‘intercropping‘, defined as ‘contemporary cultivation (partial or total in time and space) of two or more agricultural species or cultivars on the same cultivated surface‘. The standard highlights the benefits of this practice: ‘to control spontaneous species in an integrated manner, improve soil structure, favour production diversification and control at the phytosanitary level‘.

Agroforestry represents another paradigmatic example of Level 3, defined as ‘a cultural, enterprise and agricultural system in which farmers intentionally adopt intercropping practices between tree, herbaceous and shrub crops and which may include the presence of livestock‘. These integrated systems maximise the utilisation of three-dimensional space and biogeochemical cycles.

Level 4: re-establishing connections – from farm to territorial scale

Level 4 expands the agroecological perspective from the farm scale to the territorial and supply chain scale. According to Gliessman (2015), this level focuses on re-establishing connections between producers and consumers, creating alternative food chains and social justice in the food system.

The Italian standard incorporates this dimension through various definitions. ‘Local agri-food systems (LAS)’ are defined as ‘systems alternative to the globalised food model that are based on complex relationships between agricultural production, processing, distribution and consumption in a given place‘. This definition fully captures the essence of Level 4: the relocalisation of food systems.

‘Alternative Food Networks (AFN)’ are described as circuits that ‘promote the sale of quality local products and/or Fair Trade‘, including ‘consumer organisation experiences such as Solidarity Purchasing Groups (GAS)‘. These mechanisms represent concrete tools for Level 4 implementation.

‘Direct sales’, defined simply as ‘sale of goods directly to retail‘, assumes a deeper meaning in the context of Level 4, representing a mechanism to shorten supply chains and increase the share of added value that remains with the producer.

Level 5: reconstruction of the global food system

Level 5 represents the most ambitious vision of agroecology, proposing a complete reconstruction of the global food system based on principles of sustainability, equity and social justice. This level transcends technical-agronomic aspects to embrace political, economic and cultural dimensions.

UNI standard 1615303 addresses this dimension through the concept of ‘food sovereignty‘, defined as ‘a process of construction of social movements, which originates from peasants‘. It ‘is synonymous with solidarity and not competition. Access to food is essential to human survival and is a fundamental human right‘.

‘Social dialogue’ is defined as ‘negotiation, consultation or simply exchange of information with or between representatives of Governments, employers and workers, on matters of common interest relating to economic and social policy‘. This concept is fundamental for Level 5 implementation, which requires systemic transformations that go beyond agricultural practices.

Interconnections and transition dynamics

A critical aspect of Gliessman’s model concerns the transition dynamics between different levels. Contrary to a linear and sequential vision, agroecological transition often involves non-linear processes, with possible regressions and accelerations.

UNI standard 1615303 introduces the concept of ‘agroecological transition’, defined as ‘a transition process to agroecology with a view to sustainable transformation of the agri-food system, which can be traced back to five phases‘. The identified phases correspond to Gliessman’s 5 levels, but the formulation highlights the processual rather than static nature of the transition.

The ’emergent properties of an agroecological system’ are defined as ‘collective ensemble properties not reducible to those of its constituents‘. This definition assumes particular relevance for understanding how the higher levels of Gliessman’s model generate qualitatively different benefits compared to the simple sum of implemented practices.

Key definitions in the UNI standard

Agroecology: paradigm of transformation

The central definition of the document identifies agroecology as ‘a paradigm for sustainable transformation of agri-food systems, which integrates science, agricultural practices and social movements‘ (UNI, 2025). This definition highlights three fundamental dimensions: scientific, practical and social, moving beyond the purely technical vision to embrace a systemic perspective.

Production systems alternative to the conventional agricultural model

UNI standard 1615303 describes and defines production systems alternative to the conventional agricultural model with high intensity of external inputs. Without however making a precise distinction between organic agriculture (and biodynamic agriculture, within its scope) – the only system that legally excludes both the use of synthetic chemical inputs, GMOs and NGTs (New Genomic Techniques) in agriculture, and the use of numerous additives in food processing – and other production methods. The definitions therefore include, among various systems:

  • organic agriculture, defined by the UNI standard as ‘a production system defined by EU Regulation 2018/848 and subsequent modifications and integrations‘, represents the most consolidated and widespread regulatory model. The only one, it is emphasised, to be based on specific legislation and official control systems. The organic system is distinguished by the prohibition of use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, adoption of multi-annual rotations and integration of fertility management practices based on natural biological processes;
  • biodynamic agriculture, described as ‘an agricultural system based on anthroposophical scientific principlesdeveloped by Rudolf Steiner‘, introduces dimensions that go beyond conventional technical-agronomic aspects. The standard identifies as foundational principles ‘the deep ecological approach; the agricultural enterprise as an organism with a closed cycle; respect for vital and cosmic rhythms; humus technology as soil vivification; the strict proportion between animals, land and rotations; farm origin of production inputs; restoration of agriculture to its social and anthroposophical dimension‘;
  • permaculture, cited as ‘an agricultural production system proposed by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren to support comprehensive and sustainable planning of territorial use. It is based on the application of diverse knowledge (gardening, horticulture, ecology, architecture, finance, sociology) that aims at territorial planning with the objective of satisfying the needs of resident populations, reducing‘ – without excluding – ‘waste production and use of chemical inputs, valorising positive interactions between various elements at territorial scale, promoting high biodiversity polyculture systems, with the co-presence of tree, shrub and herbaceous plant species and the presence of animals‘;
  • conservation agriculture focuses on ‘conservation of natural resources, whilst obtaining high and durable yields‘, based on three fundamental principles: minimal mechanical soil disturbance, permanent plant cover, and diversified crop rotations. This approach, it is highlighted, does not exclude the use of chemical inputs and is therefore positioned in an intermediate position between conventional and agroecological systems;
  • regenerative agriculture is defined as a system ‘aimed at restoring and actively improving ecosystem health, mainly through practices that regenerate soil, increase biodiversity, improve water cycles and strengthen the resilience of agricultural communities‘. This system, developed by Robert Rodale in the 1980s, is moreover still lacking uniform rules and does not exclude the use of chemical inputs, GMOs and NGTs in agriculture.

Animal husbandry and livestock farming

UNI standard 1615303 presents a detailed taxonomy of farming systems that reflects the complexity of relationships between productive intensity, animal welfare and environmental impact. This classification is based mainly on the degree of animal confinement and intensity of external input use, criteria that significantly influence the sustainability of livestock systems:

  • extensive farming is defined as ‘a form of farming with limited recourse to inputs external to the system, based on local and natural contexts and with strong links to the territory‘. The standard specifies three distinctive characteristics: moderate productive rhythms, high forage/concentrate ratio in herbivores, and high quota of livestock feed produced on-farm or in the surrounding territory;
  • intensive farming, conversely, is characterised by ‘high animal density per unit area‘ and can take place ‘even in the absence of sufficient land to guarantee plant production that satisfies the potential feed requirements of farmed animals‘. The standard identifies characteristics in terms of high investments, reduced forage input, limited biodiversity, animal genetics oriented to maximising yields, difficulty in achieving optimal conditions for animal welfare.

Pastoral systems and territorial management

The standard dedicates ample attention to pastoral systems, recognising their central role in territorial agroecology. Pasture is defined as ‘a multiphyte forage system (consisting of many species), classified among permanent forages whose biomass is directly used by animals‘. This definition highlights the importance of plant diversity and direct use of forage resources. Among various systems, the following are noted:

  • improved pasture, in areas where ‘agronomic techniques are applied that favour biodiversity, good forage composition, nutrient recycling. The agronomic techniques can be:

i) harrowing with spreading of animal excrement;

ii) cutting or mowing of non-palatable essences;

iii) stone removal;

iv) maintenance of hydraulic-agricultural systems‘;

  • rational grazing, defined as ‘grazing organised in different territories according to a predetermined schema‘. The standard lists numerous variants: rationed grazing, hourly grazing, regenerative grazing, Voisin rational grazing, holistic grazing, adaptive grazing. This terminological diversification reflects the scientific evolution of the sector and the search for optimal approaches to pastoral management;
  • regenerative grazing, in turn described as ‘intensive rational grazing that favours mixed grazing‘ with the objective of highlighting ‘recovery of degraded agroecosystems and generated ecosystem services‘. This approach is based on the theory that controlled grazing can restore soil fertility and plant diversity, reversing degradation processes.

Animal welfare and evaluation parameters

The UNI document defines animal welfare as ‘optimal condition obtained in respect of the universal principle whereby an animal is maintained healthy, safe, well-nourished and free from suffering‘. This definition integrates physical, behavioural and environmental aspects, reflecting the evolution of the concept from the original Five Freedoms towards more holistic approaches.

The document introduces the Body Condition Score (BCS) as ‘a score that indicates the fattening state of an animal and its relative body condition, through evaluation of specific anatomical regions of the animal‘. This tool represents an objective indicator of nutritional welfare and can be used to monitor the adequacy of management systems.

The ethogram, defined as ‘the set of natural behaviours that a given animal species manifests in general or in a specific situation‘, provides the reference framework for evaluating whether farming environments allow the expression of species-specific behaviours. The possibility of expressing natural behaviours is considered a fundamental prerequisite for animal welfare in agroecological systems.

Rusticity and environmental adaptation

Livestock rusticity is defined as ‘the ability of animals to survive, reproduce and maintain production in a wide range of environmental conditions‘. This characteristic implies ‘a physical conformation and metabolism shaped not so much on productivity as on a greater capacity for adaptation to the territory‘.

Rustic breeds are in turn described as ‘breeds with marked rusticity and environmental and feed adaptability, suitable for breeding with semi-free range or extensive free-range farming systems‘. These breeds typically present robust physical conformation, greater disease resistance, superior longevity and adaptability to local forage systems.

The valorisation of rustic breeds presents multiple ecosystem advantages: genetic diversity conservation, maintenance of traditional pastoral ecosystems, reduced dependence on external inputs and climate resilience.

Agriculture-livestock integration

The standard recognises the importance of integration between plant and animal components in agroecosystems. Agrosilvopastoral systems are defined as ‘systems in which livestock and grazing activities are integrated with forage production and/or cultivation of herbaceous species on part of the surface or in some years‘.

This integration generates productive synergies through various mechanisms: nutrient recycling through animal excrement, biological control of weeds through grazing, economic risk diversification, and territorial use optimisation. The effectiveness of these systems depends on careful design of spatio-temporal interactions between different components.

The forage chain is defined as ‘a continuous and organically pre-ordered sequence of temporary crops that, over months and years, provide forage biomass to respond to livestock requirements and land fertility maintenance‘. This highlights the value of temporal planning to guarantee constant forage availability and system sustainability.

Emerging technologies and precision livestock farming

Precision livestock farming is defined as ‘a set of technological solutions useful for livestock management that includes sensors, robots, management software, observation and control, artificial intelligence techniques‘. This approach represents the application of digital technologies to livestock management.

The adoption of advanced technologies requires however significant investments and technical skills often not yet accessible to small agricultural enterprises. Dependence on complex technological systems can moreover reduce the resilience of farming systems in the face of failures or interruptions.

Ecosystem services in agroecology

UNI standard 1615303 adopts the international classification established by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which represents the most scientifically recognised conceptual framework for categorising ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are defined as ‘a set of services that natural systems generate in favour of humans‘ and are described as ‘the multiple benefits provided by ecosystems to humankind‘ (UNI, 2025).

This definition, whilst being consistent with established scientific literature, presents some conceptual limitations. The anthropocentric perspective implicit in the formulation ‘in favour of humans‘ reflects the traditional approach but does not fully consider ecosystem interactions that transcend direct human benefit. This approach nevertheless remains functional for practical application in agricultural contexts and policy-making.

Regulation services: the cornerstone of agroecosystems

Regulation services probably represent the most critical category for agricultural system sustainability. The standard specifically identifies: regulation of atmospheric gases, climate, water, erosion, prevention of hydrogeological instability, pollination regulation and habitat for biodiversity (UNI, 2025).

Climate regulation at local scale assumes particular relevance in agroecosystems. Agroecological practices can significantly influence microclimate through various mechanisms: increased plant cover reduces surface temperatures, increased soil organic matter improves water retention capacity, and structural diversification of habitats creates microclimatic gradients favourable to functional biodiversity (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017).

Erosion control represents a quantifiable ecosystem service of immediate economic relevance. Adoption of soil conservative practices, as defined in the standard through concepts of ‘conservation tillage‘ and ‘cover crops‘, can reduce soil losses from 10-100 tonnes per hectare per year (conventional systems) to 1-5 tonnes per hectare per year, remaining below pedological sustainability thresholds (Montgomery, 2007).

Pollination merits particular attention for its direct economic relevance. The global economic value of animal pollination is estimated between 235-577 billion dollars annually (IPBES, 2016). The standard defines pollination as ‘transfer of pollen from stamens to organs containing ovules‘, highlighting its ‘fundamental function for plant production‘.

Provisioning services: productivity and diversification

Provisioning services include food production, raw materials, fresh water and biological variability. In the agroecological context, these services assume distinctive characteristics compared to conventional agricultural systems, privileging quality over maximum quantity and long-term productive stability.

Plant productivity, defined by the standard as ‘quantity of biomass produced by a plant or crop in a predetermined time interval‘, must be evaluated considering not only yield per unit area but also resource use efficiency. Diversified agroecosystems often show greater efficiency in light, water and nutrient use through spatial and temporal complementarity mechanisms between species (Malézieux et al., 2009).

Biological variability as a provisioning service represents a peculiarity of agroecological approaches. The standard distinguishes between ‘local varieties‘, ‘conservation varieties‘ and ‘evolutionary populations‘, highlighting the importance of genetic diversity not only as heritage to be conserved but as an active productive resource. Local varieties, defined as ‘plant varieties adapted to a specific agroecosystem‘, provide resilient genetic material adapted to local conditions.

Cultural services: the social dimension of agroecology

Cultural services perhaps represent the most innovative aspect of the agroecological approach compared to conventional production systems. The standard identifies ‘aesthetic, recreational, educational, spiritual, artistic, identity values‘ as components of this category (UNI, 2025).

The agricultural landscape, defined as ‘the outcome of that activity which humans, in the course of and for the purposes of their agricultural productive activities, consciously and systematically imprint on the natural landscape‘, represents a cultural service of growing relevance. The multifunctionality of agroecosystems contributes to creating cultural landscapes that have tourist, educational and identity value for local communities.

The educational function of diversified agroecosystems is particularly relevant in urban societies. Agroecological enterprises function as ‘living laboratories‘ for understanding ecological processes and relationships between agricultural practices and environment. This service assumes economic value through rural tourism activities, educational farms and environmental education programmes.

Quantification and economic evaluation

A critical aspect in practical application of the ecosystem services concept concerns quantification and economic evaluation. The standard does not provide specific indications on measurement methods, limiting itself to conceptual definitions. However, development of quantitative indicators is essential for operational implementation.

For regulation services, established quantification methodologies exist. Carbon sequestration can be measured through analysis of soil organic matter content and above-ground biomass. Typical values for well-managed agroecological systems vary from 0.5 to 2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per hectare per year (Gattinger et al., 2012).

Water retention can be quantified through infiltration measurements, field capacity and soil aggregate stability. Agroecosystems with high structural diversity generally show infiltration capacities 2-10 times higher than simplified systems, with evident benefits for hydrogeological risk management.

Interactions and synergies between services

A distinctive element of the agroecological approach is recognition of synergistic interactions between different ecosystem services. The standard defines synergies as ‘interactions that occur when the joint action of elements under consideration determines effects greater than those that would occur if the action of the same elements occurred separately‘ (UNI, 2025).

For example, increasing plant biodiversity through introducing cover crops simultaneously generates soil structure improvement (regulation service), increased forage biomass production (provisioning service) and agricultural landscape diversification (cultural service). These multiple synergies represent a competitive advantage of agroecological approaches compared to specialised systems.

Governance and payments for ecosystem services

An emerging aspect in ecosystem services management concerns developing payment mechanisms (Payments for Ecosystem Services – PES). The standard defines ‘responsible governance‘ as one of the 10 Elements of agroecology, but does not provide details on economic mechanisms for internalising ecosystem services value.

Development perspectives

Future development of the ecosystem services conceptual framework in agroecological contexts requires several advances:

  • integration of advanced monitoring technologies (remote sensors, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence) for real-time quantification of ecosystem services;
  • development of economic models that incorporate ecosystem services value into business decision-making processes;
  • creation of markets for ecosystem services that allow farmers to receive adequate compensation for environmental benefits produced.

Socio-economic aspects: the human dimension of agroecology

Models of social and territorial agriculture

UNI standard 1615303 recognises the social dimension of agroecology through defining numerous models that integrate agricultural production and social functions. Social agriculture is defined as ‘a set of activities carried out by agricultural entrepreneurs and social cooperatives that aims to recover solidarity, integration and valorisation of the relational dimension, through activities in multifunctional agricultural enterprises, that valorise biodiversity, dissemination of territorial knowledge, and insertion of disadvantaged workers and those with disabilities‘ (UNI, 2025).

This approach highlights how agroecology transcends mere food production to embrace therapeutic and social inclusion functions. Integration of people with disabilities or in disadvantaged conditions into agricultural production processes generates multiple benefits: on one hand it provides work and rehabilitation opportunities, on the other it enriches the social diversity of agricultural enterprises.

Family farming, described as ‘the dominant form of agriculture in the food production sector, both in advanced countries and those in development, linked to food security‘, represents the prevailing organisational model globally. The standard emphasises that ‘family farmers manage their land with attention and traditional knowledge to obtain adequate productivity levels, despite lesser access to productive resources, such as support and agricultural technical means‘. This definition highlights the resilience and adaptability of family systems, fundamental characteristics for agricultural sustainability.

Guardians of biodiversity and traditional knowledge

Custodian farmers are defined as ‘natural persons who perform a function of public interest on behalf of Regions in conserving varieties and breeds at risk of genetic erosion registered in the Regional Repertory of genetic resources‘. This institutional figure formally recognises farmers’ role in agricultural biodiversity conservation and transmission of traditional knowledge.

The concept of custodian farmer connects directly to diffused seed systems, defined as ‘seed systems where the local rural community participates in various ways in seed production and dissemination and varietal innovation‘. The standard specifies that ‘recognising a role in research for farmers leads to considering these systems not only as places of mere conservation, but highlights their creative and innovative aspects: new diversity is created in time and space‘.

Peasant agroecology is in turn defined as ‘a production system that supports productive cycles that enrich life and opposes those that alter it‘. The standard specifies that ‘it concerns not only agriculture, but transformation towards a society built on collective rights, customs and laws that recognise the rights of self-determination and autonomy of peasants and communities‘. This political definition highlights how peasant agroecology transcends technical aspects to embrace a systemic vision of social transformation.

Biodistricts and territorial systems

Biodistricts are defined as ‘territorial systems, also of inter-municipal, inter-provincial or inter-regional character, with a marked agricultural vocation in which all stakeholders interact, cultivation, breeding, processing and food preparation, within the territory identified by the biodistrict, according to the principles and practices of agroecology and/or organic or biodynamic agriculture‘.

The urban bioregion is defined as a system characterised by ‘ordering presence of a settlement system composed of a plurality of small and medium urban and rural centres‘ and by ‘interacting presence of complex and differentiated hydro-geo-morphological and environmental systems, consciously related in co-evolutionary and synergistic forms with the settlement, urban and agroforestry system‘. This concept integrates territorial planning and agricultural development in a systemic vision of spatial organisation.

Urban and peri-urban agriculture

Urban and peri-urban agriculture is indicated as ‘a set of principles, agronomic practices aimed at agricultural production and related processes (processing, distribution, marketing, recycling, promotion, communication etc.), with a view to offering ecosystem services, that take place in agricultural enterprises or land located within cities and surrounding areas‘.

This practice responds to growing global urbanisation and the need to reconnect cities with food production. Urban agriculture presents multiple advantages: reduction of transport distances, food education of urban populations, sustainable management of urban green spaces, and social inclusion through involvement of local communities.

Community gardens are described as ‘common spaces, public or private, or land confiscated from the mafia, or unused land around cities entrusted to families, or communities, or social cooperatives, where people cultivate quality food together creating income and social cohesion‘. This definition highlights the social function of urban agricultural spaces beyond food production.

Community Supported Agriculture

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is defined as ‘a form of community-supported agriculture: an innovative approach to agriculture understood as food production and distribution, that centres on co-participation of producers and consumers in production‘. The standard specifies that ‘it aims to establish a relationship of mutual support between local communities and food producers‘ through sharing ‘risks and opportunities of production’.

This model represents a significant evolution compared to conventional markets, transferring part of economic risk from producers to consumers in exchange for purchase guarantees and fair prices. CSA thus distinguishes itself from ‘Alternative Food Networks (AFN)’ (see above, Level 4 of Gliessman’s framework), which also promote productive transparency and direct connection between producers and consumers, central elements in the agroecological approach.

Circular economy and social capital

The standard integrates principles of circular economy, defined as ‘an economic system that, through a systemic and holistic approach, aims to maintain circular resource flow, conserving, regenerating or increasing their value, and that simultaneously contributes to sustainable development‘.

Upcycling is defined as ‘a process whereby secondary material resources and/or by-products are transformed or converted into new materials, components or products of better quality, better functionality and/or higher value‘. This concept is particularly relevant for valorising agricultural by-products and creating integrated supply chains that minimise food losses and waste.

Social capital is defined as ‘capital represented by the central role of social relations’ based on ‘the value of social networks that link people who share values and experiences and are bound by reciprocity rules‘. This concept highlights the importance of interpersonal relationships for agroecological system functionality, which often depend on cooperation and mutual trust.

Other concepts of relevance

Heterogeneous Biological Material (HBM)

The standard introduces the concept of Heterogeneous Biological Material, defined according to EU Regulation 2021/1189. That is, ‘a plant ensemble belonging to a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank which:

a) presents common phenotypic characteristics;

b) is characterised by a high level of genetic and phenotypic diversity between individual reproductive units, so that such plant ensemble is represented by the material as a whole and not by a reduced number of individuals;

c) is not a variety within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 2, of regulation (EC) no. 2100/94;

d) is not a mixture of varieties; and

e) has been produced in conformity with‘ regulation (EU) 2018/848;

This regulatory innovation represents an evolution compared to traditional varieties, allowing greater genetic diversity in organic cultivation.

New Genomic Techniques (NGTs)

The document defines ‘New Genomic Techniques’, NGT, as ‘techniques of genetic manipulation that aim to modify plant DNA‘. An essential concept for clarifying the bases of the ongoing debate on new GMOs, subject to recent deregulation proposals in the European Union.

One Health and planetary health

The standard integrates the concepts of One Health and Global/Planetary Health, defining the latter as ‘a new paradigm that integrates analysis and research into resolutions of alterations and impacts, of anthropogenic origin, not only on the planet’s natural systems, but also on human health‘. This integration highlights the multidisciplinary approach of agroecology.

Provisional conclusions

The UNI document presents an extremely broad vocabulary, undoubtedly useful for understanding the multidisciplinarity of agroecology and promoting regulatory coherence at national and regional level. It is indeed hoped that this Italian standard could constitute the basis for a European and international standard or regulation, as already happened for UNI standard 11233:2009 on integrated agricultural production (whose criteria were largely taken up in framework directive 2009/128/EC on sustainable use of pesticides).

Transparency perspectives

An essential function of the technical standard is to promote transparency, on a lexicon that has moreover already been extensively shared in scientific literature and FAO publications. Sector operators could thus refer to UNI standard definitions to describe their production systems and individual activities.

Control authorities can in turn refer to the same definitions to verify the correctness of operators’ labels and advertising. A significant precedent in this regard is technical specification ISO/TS 19657:2017 which defines natural food ingredients (ISO, 2017).

Risks of confusion

The 275 definitions proposed in UNI standard 1615303 are however listed in mere alphabetical order, without distinguishing the different systems and production methods in relation to:

  • the five levels indicated by Gliessman for ecological transition;
  • adherence to the 10 Elements and 13 Principles of agroecology indicated by FAO and HLPE.

Grouping such different systems and methods under the umbrella of agroecology, in the writer’s view, could cause confusion through greenwashing practices that can penalise the protagonists of true agroecology, in the market as well as in the management of so-called green procurement.

Greenwashing is defined by the same UNI standard as ‘the condition that occurs when companies, institutions, entities or persons define activities as sustainable by lying about the real costs for the environment and society and/or avoiding mentioning the real negative impact or simply omitting, or not providing with transparency information relevant to determining the real long-term effect on people, natural resources and climate‘.

Green Public Procurement (GPP) is in turn defined as ‘an environmental policy instrument that intends to favour the development of a market for products and services with reduced environmental impact through the leverage of public demand, contributing decisively to achieving the objectives of the main European strategies such as that on efficient use of resources or that on the Circular Economy‘.

The weak directive (EU) 2024/825 – Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition – should protect consumers from greenwashing practices, and it is all the more necessary to clarify the prohibition of referring the term ‘agroecology’ to practices not subject to organic certification under regulation (EU) 2018/848.

Dario Dongo

Bibliography

  • Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2017). The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Climatic Change, 140(1), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y
  • Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1189 of 7 May 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the production and marketing of plant reproductive material of organic heterogeneous material of particular genera or species. Consolidated text: 05/07/2022 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2021/1189/2022-07-05
  • Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention (Treaty No. 176).
  • Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. Consolidated text: 26/07/2019 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/128/2019-07-26
  • Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/128/2019-07-26
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). The 10 elements of agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agriculture systems. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/I9037EN.pdf
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). The Third Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd4711en
  • Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A., Buchmann, N., … & Niggli, U. (2012). Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 18226-18231. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209429109
  • Gliessman, S. R. (1990). Understanding the basis of sustainability for agriculture in the tropics: Experiences in Latin America. In C. A. Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R. H. Miller, & G. House (Eds.), Sustainable agricultural systems (pp. 378–390). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003070474-26
  • Hill, S. B., & MacRae, R. J. (1995). Conceptual framework for the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 7(1), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v07n01_07
  • High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf
  • IPBES. (2016). The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3402856
  • International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO/TS 19657:2017. Definitions and technical criteria for food ingredients to be considered as natural (Technical Specification). https://www.iso.org/standard/65717.html
  • Malézieux, E., Crozat, Y., Dupraz, C., Laurans, M., Makowski, D., Ozier-Lafontaine, H., … & Valantin-Morison, M. (2009). Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007057
  • Méndez, V. E., Bacon, C. M., & Cohen, R. (2013). Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.736926
  • Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Consolidated text: 25/03/2025 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/2025-03-25
  • UNI, Ente Italiano di Normazione. (2009). UNI 11233:2009 – Sistemi di produzione integrata nelle filiere agroalimentari – Principi generali per la progettazione e l’attuazione nelle filiere vegetali. Milano: UNI. https://store.uni.com/uni-11233-2009
  • Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., & David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(4), 503-515. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004
  • World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Environment Programme, & World Organisation for Animal Health. (2022). One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022–2026): Working together for the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240059139
Dario Dongo
+ posts

Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.

Related post

Agroecology, 6 systems compared. The benefits of organic for farmers. Analysis cover organic_agricultureThe advantages of organic agriculture, scientific review by FiBL Food Times_organic agriculture_environment_animal healthBenefits of organic agriculture for environment and animal welfare: a comprehensive review Pesticides used in conventional and organic. Comparative toxicity