Is public action in favour of agroecology fragmented? Institutionalization and territorialization of agroecology in Madagascar – TAEM

Methods:

As part of the TAEM project, we will use a mixed method, combining qualitative and quantitative data.

Our research will be based on four types of qualitative data production:

Semi-structured interviews with institutional actors (e.g., representatives of the ministries of agriculture, environment, and livestock, members of non-governmental, umbrella, and international organizations, etc.), economic operators in agricultural sectors, and farmers

Focus groups with territorial development stakeholders (e.g., local authorities, sector stakeholders, farmers, etc.)

Analysis of written sources: gray literature (e.g., expert reports, workshop reports, policy briefs, etc.), public policy documents (e.g., laws, regulatory texts, national/regional strategies, etc.) and academic publications (e.g., theses, scientific articles, etc.)

Participant and non-participant observations

In addition, we will supplement these qualitative data with analyses of existing quantitative data and data from agroeconomic surveys (e.g., DINAAMICC, EcoAfrica, ProSol projects, etc.) on the integration of agroecological practices at the farm and territorial levels.

Approaches:

Our multidisciplinary research team will conduct a multiscale analysis of the technical, institutional, and political levers of agroecology in Madagascar. We will focus on analyzing the controversies, power relations, and alliances at work in the development and territorial implementation of public policy in favor of agroecology, concentrating on how various actors perceive and structure issues related to agroecology (Guéneau et al., 2020; Milhorance et al., 2024). Beyond these approaches at the interface of the sociology of public action and the cognitive analysis of public policies, the TAEM project also fits into a geography of transitions in order to understand how agroecological initiatives are spatially constituted and anchored in the territories and practices of producers (Charbonneau, 2025). To achieve this, we will mobilize three main approaches: localized approaches, which take into account the diversity and trajectories of territories; micro approaches, which pay particular attention to farmers' spatial logic by integrating both their practices and their representations and strategies in relation to the agroecological innovations disseminated by projects and policies; multi-scale approaches, which lead us to examine agroecological initiatives by integrating individual, collective, and public action.

Located at the intersection of agroecological transitions, cognitive analysis of public policy, and sociology of public action, the TAEM project is structured around three complementary work packages with several associated outcomes.

WP1 - A socio-history of the concept of agroecology in Madagascar and an analysis of its institutionalization, defined as the integration of agroecology into public policy, the practices of national and local institutions, and the strategies and habits of actors in the agri-food sector.

WP1 results

Deliverable 1.1 - Chronology of the emergence of the debate on agroecology in Madagascar

Deliverable 1.2 - Mapping of the networks of actors who contribute to circulating the concept of agroecology and shaping a diversity of designs

Deliverable 1.3 - Institutional diagnosis and review of Malagasy public policies and rural and agricultural development projects

WP2 - Mapping and characterizing the diversity of agroecology projects in the country's major agroecological zones, and analyzing the conditions for transitioning from project territories to territorial projects promoting agroecology.

WP2 results

Deliverable 2.1 - Mapping of agroecological initiatives in Madagascar according to a collectively constructed typology

Deliverable 2.2 - Presentation sheets for a non-academic audience on the various agroecological initiatives to be posted on the MANABOOST platform

WP3 - An analysis of the territorialization of agroecology, its spatial diffusion, and its forms of territorial anchoring, through a study of the materiality and effective anchoring of a few agroecological initiatives in agricultural practices (adoption and adaptation of techniques by producers, etc.) and territories (marketing of agroecological products, developed areas, etc.) within contrasting study areas.

WP3 results

Deliverable 3.1 – Presentation of the socio-history of the study areas via a summary note on the contexts and trajectories of local development

Deliverable 3.2 – Cross-cutting analytical framework on the processes of territorialization of agroecology, illustrated by the results of surveys conducted within the study areas

Deliverable 3.3 – Assessment of the implementation of technical and organizational proposals for projects promoting agroecology in territories and agrarian systems

Debating results and building capacity

In each of the regions studied, a territorial foresight workshop will be organized to present and discuss our analyses and results locally. Beyond sharing knowledge, this type of workshop aims to propose tools and methods, known as anticipation tools, in order to collectively envision an agroecological territory by looking to the future. These methods, such as the “wheel of futures,” allow for multidimensional thinking and push the analysis beyond a purely technical description to the political, economic, social, and environmental consequences of scaling up agroecological innovations in a territory. These methods, which are simple to implement, have proven their relevance by facilitating the co-production of knowledge and dialogue between actors from diverse backgrounds. The aim of these workshops will therefore also be to transfer participatory foresight methods to participants.

Fueling public policy debates on agroecological transition

Our strategy for disseminating results, notably through the organization of multi-level workshops, is part of a broader objective to produce, share, and debate new knowledge and courses of action in support of agricultural and rural development. Opening up spaces for exchange and debate to all actors involved in the agroecological transition (representatives of the agricultural profession, researchers, decision-makers, and operators) is necessary to initiate multi-level and multi-actor collective action in order to remove the political and institutional barriers to the integration of agroecology into Madagascan public policy. This is key to identifying, in a participatory and sustainable manner, avenues for public policies and actions in favor of agroecology. Throughout the TAEM project, we plan to forge links with other agroecology research and development projects and programs in Madagascar and with other stakeholders and organizations (public, research, civil society) in order to identify ways to sustain these multi-stakeholder forums for debate on the agroecological transition in Madagascar.

Training activities

The TAEM project aims to contribute to student training through a doctoral thesis and four Master's-level internships. These students will have the opportunity to strengthen their skills both theoretically (analysis of public action in countries “under aid regimes,” territorial dynamics and agroecological transitions, etc.) and methodologically (conducting surveys in rural areas and interviews with institutional actors, database analysis, etc.).

In response to the limitations of conventional agricultural development models based on the principles of the Green Revolution, agroecology, as an alternative production system integrating environmental, social, economic and public health issues, has gained prominence in scientific, agricultural and political debates in recent years. It is establishing itself on the international agenda as a solution for sustainably increasing agricultural productivity while preserving natural resources. In Madagascar, a country “under an aid regime” where public action is the result of the intervention of multiple local, national and international players, the enthusiasm for agroecology is materializing in multiple initiatives (mainly related to projects financed by international donors) at different scales and in various territories (Hautes Terres, Boeny, Grand Sud, Menabe, etc.). However, its integration into national public policies and its effective anchoring and results in the territories remain limited. From this tension stems our problem: while agroecology has been repeatedly promoted for over twenty years in Madagascar by a diversity of stakeholder networks, why does its anchoring in farms, its development in territories and the effective implementation of agroecological policies remain limited? What are the technical, institutional and political constraints to the institutionalization and territorialization of agroecology in Madagascar? Our multi-disciplinary research team (geographers, political scientists, socio-economists, agronomists) will conduct a comparative and multi-scalar analysis to understand the dynamics of the emergence and placing on the political agenda of agroecology in Madagascar, as well as the processes of institutionalization and territorialization of agroecology, which combine different scales (local, regional, national) and involve several networks of actors (national and international experts, farmers' organizations, the state and local authorities, economic operators, etc.). Situated at the crossroads of a social geography of agroecological innovations, a cognitive analysis of public policies and a sociology of public action in a country “under an aid regime”, the TAEM project is structured around three complementary axes: (i) a socio-history of the notion of agroecology in Madagascar and an analysis of its institutionalization, defined as the integration of agroecology into public policies, practices of national and local institutions and strategies and habits of players in agri-food chains ; (ii) a mapping and characterization of the diversity of agroecological projects in the country's major agroecological zones, as well as an analysis of the conditions for the transition from “project territories” to territorial projects in favor of agroecology ; and (iii) an analysis of the territorialization of agroecology, its spatial diffusion and its forms of territorial anchorage, through a study of the materiality and effective anchorage of three agroecological initiatives in farm practices (adoption and conservation of techniques by producers) and territories (marketing of agroecological products, areas developed with agroecological techniques, etc.) in three contrasting study areas (Androy, Boeny and Vakinankaratra). This research is based on qualitative (semi-directive interviews, focus groups, study of grey literature and observations) and quantitative (analysis of existing databases) research methods. These two dimensions enable us to identify situations, perceptions and changes in practices in a meaningful (qualitative approach) and representative (quantitative approach) way respectively.