This paper investigates the main systemic barriers to scaling agroecology and identifies transition pathways that can be implemented within existing economic and policy structures.

Identified systemic barriers:

• Political narratives: agroecology is often portrayed as less modern and incompatible with modern agriculture. Ambiguity is further compounded by the use of overlapping but narrower terms such as sustainable intensification and climate-smart agriculture
• Institutional capacity, power asymmetries, and global disparity: uneven institutional coherence and enforcement capacity generate divergent transition pathways, constraining the scalability and transferability of agroecology.  These disparities are compounded by structural power asymmetries between territorially bounded public institutions and global corporate actors. Multinationals use their economic power to influence policies over inputs, value chains, and standards reinforcing policy inertia
• Market structures constraints: Agroecology’s focus on labour, skills, knowledge, and locally producible biological inputs conflicts with the product-oriented incentives of global agricultural markets. Changing to agroecology often implies transaction costs; certification and standardization barriers further restrict market access of agroecological products.
• Weaker evidence base at multiple scales hampers wider acceptance: Agroecological performance is seldom measured with comprehensive, multi‑scalar indicators; individual crop yield remains the main metric. Although agroecological systems may show lower crop yields in some cases, diversified approaches deliver higher system yields, greater resilience and improved societal and planetary wellbeing. Hence, yield trade‑offs should be addressed at the food‑system level, and research funding—public and private—should be redirected to agroecology that enhances system‑level yields.
• Food security and Governance: Evidence indicates that many current food security challenges arise more from governance failures, unequal access, ecological degradation, and vulnerability to climate and input shocks than from constraints on food supply.
• Consumers preference: mechanisms for channelling consumer preference towards agroecology products are currently weak. Eco-labelling schemes based on region-specific agroecology standards could foster demand.
• Other identified barriers: higher labour requirements, ageing farmers population, shortage of extension services and service providers

Policy recommendations:

• Unify agroecology narratives and integrate them into national and global policy frameworks;
• Enhance extension service provision in the following 5 priority areas: Biocontrol of pests, Nutrient cycling and soil health, Water management, Pollination services, Agroforestry and habitat management
• Develop knowledge hubs linking farmers, researchers, service providers, and technical advisors to facilitate adaptive learning and context-specific innovation, integrating indigenous practices, scientific research, and practical experience.
• Create circular, service‑based market models that turn nature’s benefits and farms into jobs; use “managed connectivity” to link food systems to global networks, and invest in aggregation and certification tools to stabilise farmer incomes and shield them from market swings.