Comparison of Governance Policies for Agroforestry Initiatives: Lessons Learned from France and Quebec

Abstract

This study explores the fundamental components and specificities of agroforestry policies in France and Quebec, with a particular focus on the regions of Brittany and Montérégie. It uses a mixed-methods approach, combining an in-depth literature review and 14 semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders, including research institutions, agricultural advisory organizations, independent experts, and regional public agencies engaged in agroforestry and environmental initiatives. The collected data were qualitatively analyzed using word frequency and co-occurrence techniques, based on Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. The results reveal that in France, agroforestry benefits from a well-structured policy environment, centered on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Agroforestry Development Plan (PDA). The Breizh Bocage initiative is making a positive contribution to this, with more than 5000 km of hedges planted thanks to its localized governance model and direct community funding. In Quebec, agroforestry is also supported by various policies and programs such as Prime-Vert, with more than 2370 hedge planting projects completed. Despite its strengths, the French case, particularly the Breizh Bocage program, is limited by cumbersome administrative procedures. In both contexts, stakeholders emphasize the need to improve the transparency and efficiency of the program by simplifying administrative processes and harmonizing financial support mechanisms.

1. Introduction

Agroforestry is an integrated land-use approach that incorporates trees into agricultural systems to enhance interactions among plants, animals, and forest production. Agroforestry systems include several forms of practices, including hedgerows, intercropping with trees, silvopastoralism (trees and pastures), and orchards under forest cover [1]. Recognized by the FAO as an important strategy for sustainable agriculture, these systems are increasingly promoted globally as a lever for mitigating climate change and building resilience for food systems [1]. Indeed, these practices generate a wide array of economic, ecological, and social benefits [1]. From an environmental standpoint, agroforestry is particularly valued for its contributions to carbon emission reduction, biodiversity enhancement, and resource efficiency, including the preservation of soil and water quality [2]. Economically, agroforestry allows for the diversification of farm income through the production of both timber and non-timber resources, such as fruits and fodder [3,4].

Despite these advantages, agroforestry remains underdeveloped due to institutional, economic, and sociocultural barriers [5,6]. This is especially true in high-income temperate regions, where adoption rates are hindered by numerous obstacles [1,7]. Governance (In this study, governance refers to the methods of coordination and decision-making between stakeholders involved in agroforestry) emerges as a critical factor influencing the uptake and success of agroforestry practices. It encompasses decision-making structures, financing mechanisms, and the coordination of stakeholders involved in policy implementation [8,9]. Governance models vary across countries, shaping both the adoption rate and the effectiveness of agroforestry policies [10].

In France, agroforestry is supported by a comprehensive set of regulatory tools and subsidy programs, including the Agroforestry Development Plan (PDA) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which provide financial incentives to promote agroforestry adoption [11]. Certain regions, such as Brittany, have taken proactive roles in land-use planning, exemplified by the Breizh Bocage program [12]. However, administrative burdens, funding limitations, and procedural complexity continue to undermine the efficacy of these mechanisms [10].

In contrast, Quebec, a Canadian province, has practiced agroforestry for several decades but lacks a national policy framework (the policy framework refers to the public policies, programs, and instruments implemented to support agroforestry) equivalent to that of France. Its development relies primarily on regional initiatives and collaborations among farmers, research institutions, and agricultural cooperatives [13]. The Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (MAPAQ) supports some agroforestry practices through targeted programs, with occasional federal funding. Nevertheless, the absence of consistent incentive policies and stable financial support remains a significant barrier to expansion [14]. In both France and Quebec, publicly funded agroforestry efforts predominantly focus on hedgerows—just one of several systems that include food forests and tree–intercrop associations [15].

This study is situated within an environmental governance framework and seeks to understand how public policies influence the adoption of agroforestry practices. As Ostrom [9] emphasizes, the effective management of common resources depends on robust coordination among actors, highlighting the need for governance that is responsive to local contexts. This study contributes to the scientific literature by analyzing agroforestry policy through the lens of governance, employing a polycentric governance framework [16]. By comparing contrasting experiences, it offers valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders working toward the effective and sustainable expansion of agroforestry.

This study’s overarching objective is to compare agroforestry policies in France and Quebec across four key dimensions: institutional and governance frameworks, financing mechanisms, stakeholder interactions, and evaluations of major programs such as Prime-Vert (Quebec) and Breizh Bocage (Brittany).

The academic contribution of this research lies in its comparative analysis of governance structures and public policies shaping agroforestry in two distinct institutional settings. To date, very few studies have undertaken such a cross-continental comparison. Only two recent studies come close. The first, by Lombard [17], focuses on a few European countries (France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany), relying primarily on a literature review, which results in rather general findings. The second study by Hotelier-Rous et al. [18], although it addresses both France and Quebec, begins with an analysis based on institutional websites and lacks a rigorous systematic review. Furthermore, this study provides only a general overview and overlooks the specific dynamics of the key agroforestry programs in each country. In contrast, the present study distinguishes itself by adopting a more targeted methodology, combining documentary analysis with interviews involving a diverse group of public and private stakeholders. This approach enables the development of context-specific conclusions that are directly applicable to decision-making and policy implementation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was carried out in France and Quebec to compare the governance frameworks of agroforestry policies in two distinct institutional and geographical contexts. The selection of these territories is based on their demonstrated commitment to agroforestry and the contrasting governance models they employ, which allows for a nuanced exploration of region-specific dynamics and challenges [14,18].

In France, the analysis centers on the Brittany region, located in the western part of the country and comprising five departments: Finistère, Morbihan, Côtes-d’Armor, Ille-et-Vilaine, and Loire-Atlantique. Brittany is characterized by a diverse agricultural landscape, with a strong emphasis on livestock and cereal production. Morbihan, in particular, stands out as France’s leading poultry-producing department and ranks third in pig farming [19,20,21]. This agricultural vitality makes Brittany a strategic case for examining the development and implementation of agroforestry policies on the ground.

In Quebec, this study focuses on the Montérégie region, which is one of the province’s principal agricultural hubs. Approximately 86% of its land area, covering 953,402 hectares, is designated as agricultural land [22]. Of this, 60% is actively used for agricultural production, underscoring the region’s central role in Quebec’s agri-food sector. Given its agricultural prominence and its significance in land-use planning, Montérégie provides an ideal setting for investigating agroforestry governance and the institutional mechanisms that support it. By comparing these two regions, this study seeks to highlight the divergences and complementarities in agroforestry policy frameworks, as well as the key enablers and constraints shaping their implementation within different governance systems.

Figure 1 illustrates the geographical locations of the two study areas at a global scale, specifically detailing the Saint-Laurent Valley in Quebec and the Brittany region in France.

2.2. Materials and Methods

2.2.1. Collection Tools and Actors Involved

This study adopts a comparative approach to analyze agroforestry policies in France and Quebec. The methodology combines documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis of verbatim transcripts. A comprehensive literature review was undertaken to identify existing institutional frameworks (in the context of this study, institutional framework refers to the set of rules, responsibilities, and organizational structures governing the actions of institutions involved in promoting agroforestry) and financing mechanisms. Sources include regulatory texts, national strategies, and both institutional and academic reports related to agroforestry governance.

The comparative analysis specifically focused on two key programs: the Breizh Bocage program in France and the Prime-Vert program in Quebec. These programs were selected due to their prominence within their respective contexts. Prime-Vert is widely regarded as the most significant support program for the implementation and maintenance of agroforestry systems in Quebec [18,23]. In contrast, the selection of the Breizh Bocage program is based on its regional application within Brittany and its financing through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [12].

Detailed information on the characteristics of both programs was gathered through documentary review and supplemented by semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders (

Table 1. Characteristics of Agroforestry Programs and Stakeholders Interviewed in Quebec and France.

Verbatim	Actor Type/Field
Quebec (Montérégie)		France (Brittany)
1	Research Center	National organization specializing in agroforestry
2	Agricultural Council	Research, development, and training structures
3	Independent agroforestry expert	National research organization
4	Protection of biodiversity	Regional water management body
5	Advisory Club	Other regional body
6	Regional public body (forest/agroforestry)	Regional timber management organization
7	Environment	Other regional water management body

). In total, fourteen interviews were conducted, seven in Quebec and seven in France, with representatives from a range of organizations involved in agroforestry and environmental governance. These included representatives from research centers, non-profit organizations engaged in conservation or agricultural development, and independent experts working with watershed organizations. In Montérégie, the sample also included advisors providing specialized agricultural expertise and forestry stakeholders. In France, several national and regional bodies specializing in agroforestry and water governance participated in the interviews (Table 1). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic approach to identify key patterns and challenges related to agroforestry governance.

2.2.2. Analysis Method

Interview and document data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. A word cloud was generated to identify the most frequently mentioned terms and to highlight the key concerns expressed by stakeholders. The analysis was organized around four main axes: (1) the institutional framework and governance (comparing the French and Quebec models), (2) agroforestry financing mechanisms (Common Agricultural Policy in France vs. Prime-Vert in Quebec), (3) interactions among stakeholders (including government agencies, researchers, associations, and farmers), and (4) issues related to social acceptability and development.

The comparative analysis classified policy measures supporting agroforestry according to their scope, effectiveness, and alignment with local needs. It also included a network analysis of stakeholder interactions, illustrated by a diagram that maps the relationships among the various actors involved.

In addition, a lexical analysis was conducted to examine the perceptions of interviewed stakeholders regarding agroforestry policies and measures, particularly the Prime-Vert program, focusing on its perceived benefits, limitations, and suggestions for improvement. This analysis followed a rigorous methodological framework inspired by previous research [24] and was applied to transcripts from semi-structured interviews conducted with seven categories of stakeholders in Quebec. The lexical analysis process began with the cleaning of the transcripts, followed by the standardization of terms in accordance with the guidelines provided by Muñoz [25]. A term-document matrix was then constructed to identify prominent words. A bigram co-occurrence analysis was performed to uncover dominant lexical networks, which were subsequently visualized through a semantic graph, as demonstrated in similar studies [26].

Figure 2 presents a summary of the methodological framework employed in the analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Comparative Analysis of Agroforestry Policies in Quebec and France

The analysis of agroforestry policies in the two countries examined in this study is structured around three key dimensions: the identification of institutional actors involved in the governance and promotion of agroforestry, the policy frameworks established to support its development, and the specific plans and support measures implemented in each country to advance agroforestry practices.

3.1.1. Institutional and Organizational Actors in Agroforestry in Quebec and France

• In Quebec

In Quebec, a limited number of institutions play a pivotal role in the development and promotion of agroforestry systems (Figure 3). These include the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MRNF), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MAMH), and the Ministry of the Environment, the Fight Against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP). MAPAQ, as the primary authority on agricultural policy, provides financial assistance to producers for the establishment of windbreak hedges and riparian buffer strips [14,22,27,28,29]. Between 2005 and 2013, AAFC also played a significant role by examining barriers to agroforestry adoption, supporting the development of tools to encourage uptake, and facilitating networking among stakeholders [27]. In contrast, MRNF has had a more limited role, constrained by the absence of clear directives and limited to a few localized initiatives, including agreements linking forest management with blueberry production [27]. The MAMH has recognized agroforestry as a promising tool for regional development, particularly during the implementation of rural laboratory pilot projects under the Second National Policy on Rurality (2007–2014) [27]. Furthermore, the MELCCFP identified agroforestry as a relevant climate adaptation strategy in its 2013–2020 Action Plan, which supported soil conservation and biodiversity preservation practices, including agroforestry initiatives.

Overall, these institutions can be grouped into two categories based on their roles: (1) those with direct involvement in agroforestry through technical, financial, or strategic support (MAPAQ, AAFC, and MELCCFP); and (2) those contributing indirectly through complementary or regionally targeted actions (MRNF, MAMH, and some international organizations) (Figure 3).

• In France (Brittany region)

After examining the key actors involved in the development of agroforestry in Quebec, it is essential to turn to the case of France, with a particular focus on the Brittany region. At the national level, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries (MAA) serves as the primary institutional pillar supporting agroforestry policy. Its role in advancing food sovereignty and addressing climate change has been formalized through the Agroecology Development Plan (PDA) and through direct support for agroforestry initiatives since 2015, with renewed momentum beginning in 2023 [10,30]. The French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME), operating under the supervision of several ministries, also contributes significantly to the ecological transition through support for research and development projects such as CARBOCAGE, REACCTIF, and PARASOL. These national projects respectively address the development of local carbon markets, the enhancement of organic carbon stocks in agricultural soils, and tree-animal interactions in livestock systems [31,32]. ADEME further supports agroforestry by financing local initiatives through the Territorial Climate-Air-Energy Plan (PCAET) [33].

At the technical and associative level, the French Association of Field Trees and Agroforestry (AFAC-Agroforesteries) plays a central role. Recognized as an ONVAR (National Organization with an Agricultural and Rural Vocation) for the 2022–2027 period, AFAC develops national tools, promotes the economic value of hedgerows—particularly through initiatives like the Tree Fund (2020)—offers training to practitioners, and actively participates in shaping regional, national, and European agroforestry policies [10].

Several other organizations also contribute to France’s agroforestry ecosystem. The network of Chambers of Agriculture (APCA) supports farmers, co-organizes with AFAC the General Competition for Agroecological Practices—Agroforestry, and promotes innovation in the sector [10]. Among APCA’s initiatives are the dissemination of sustainable management tools (PGDSAF), support for low-carbon labeling (for hedgerows and intra-plot methods), and advocacy for agroforestry’s integration into the CAP. It also participates in the “Plantons des haies” (Let’s Plant Hedges) initiative by offering financial support and collaborates with INRAE in the SAFE project (2001–2005) [10].

Additionally, AGROOF, a specialized design cooperative, plays a vital role in advancing agroforestry in France by providing training, engineering services, and advocacy. Through its technical expertise and involvement in regulatory development, AGROOF supports innovation and promotes best practices within the agricultural sector [10].

The Agricultural Technical Coordination Association (ACTA) also plays a coordinating role by bringing together agricultural technical institutes, promoting their work to public authorities and producers, and mobilizing them for participation in national and European projects [10]. These institutes are involved in research, technical support, experimentation, expertise, and training. The National Institute for Agronomic and Environmental Research (INRAE) also holds a pivotal position in agroforestry development in France. Through its research on the economic, agronomic, and environmental impacts of agroforestry systems, INRAE provides essential data that inform public policy decisions [10]. Collectively, the synergy among these institutions in the Brittany region illustrates a robust and integrated approach to agroforestry governance in France. Compared to Quebec, this more comprehensive institutional framework provides farmers with broader technical, financial, and political support, enhancing the resilience of agricultural systems in the face of both climate-related and economic challenges.

3.1.2. Political Frameworks Governing Agroforestry Practices in Quebec and France

• Agroforestry policies in Quebec

The regulatory and legal framework governing agroforestry policies in Quebec is multifaceted, involving several actors and multiple levels of governance [14,27,28,34]. Jurisdiction over natural resources, forests, and land-use planning falls primarily to provincial and territorial governments, while agriculture and environmental matters are shared responsibilities between federal and provincial authorities [14,35]. Municipalities operate within the parameters set by the provincial government, particularly under the provisions of the Act respecting Land Use Planning and Development [14].

Within this structure, effective collaboration among political entities—particularly at the provincial level—is essential for implementing agroforestry-friendly measures [14,22]. While the roles of the federal government and municipalities are less prominent, they nonetheless contribute to the oversight and support of agroforestry practices. However, municipalities often face challenges in complying with regulations concerning the management of the riparian buffer zones within their jurisdictions [22]. The recent passage of Bill 28 by the Quebec government has enhanced the role of Regional County Municipalities (RCMs) in local and regional development, notably through the allocation of resources under the Territorial Development Fund [22]. Agricultural policy in Quebec is structured around three core pillars: the protection of agricultural and food activities, the management of climate-related risks, and economic regulation [14,29]. A distinct institutional separation exists between the agricultural and forestry sectors, with responsibilities divided between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ) and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests (MRNF) [14]. This division can hinder the integration and recognition of agroforestry as a cross-cutting practice. Forest policy is managed by the Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks, with an emphasis on sustainable forest management and the preservation of forest ecosystems [14,36].

Environmental policy, meanwhile, is primarily overseen by the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, and the Fight Against Climate Change. This includes the enforcement of laws and regulations aimed at ensuring sustainable development and protecting biodiversity [14,22]. The Environmental Quality Act serves as a foundational legislative instrument, setting standards to safeguard biodiversity, water, air, and soil. Additional regulations targeting agricultural operations and natural heritage conservation further shape environmental governance. Moreover, Quebec’s climate change strategies—such as the 2013–2020 Action Plan and the 2030 Plan for a Green Economy—seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the province’s transition toward a more sustainable economic model. Finally, land-use and development policies engage both RCMs and municipalities in managing land in agricultural zones and promoting balanced territorial development [14,22]. In summary, Quebec’s political and institutional framework presents a complex but necessary system for overseeing agroforestry practices, one that demands strong coordination among various levels of government and policy sectors.

• Agricultural, forestry, environmental, and regional development policy in France

In France, agricultural, forestry, environmental, and territorial development policies are shaped across multiple levels of governance, with regional bodies playing a key role in facilitating the implementation and financing of agroforestry projects [10]. This decentralized structure also enables the integration of local concerns, as illustrated by the case of Brittany. French agroforestry is influenced by a range of public policies, including national agricultural, forestry, and environmental strategies, with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) serving as the primary framework guiding the orientation, regulation, and funding of agriculture in Europe. Over time, the CAP has progressively integrated agroforestry practices into its support systems [10,22,34].

Established in 1962, the CAP initially aimed to secure affordable food supplies for European citizens while ensuring fair incomes for farmers [37]. Over the years, it has undergone major reforms. The 1992 “Mac Sharry” reform marked a pivotal shift, allocating 30% of direct payments to environmentally friendly practices, including agroforestry, thus replacing earlier price-support mechanisms [37]. This reform introduced Agri-Environmental Measures (AEMs), which became mandatory components of rural development plans in EU Member States, although voluntary for individual farmers [10,22].

The 1999 reform introduced the CAP’s second pillar, focused on rural development and financed through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), enabling direct support for local agroforestry initiatives [38]. However, prior to 2001, agroforestry plots were not recognized as eligible for agricultural aid [34]. This changed with the Hexagonal Rural Development Program (PDRH), which introduced a dedicated measure to support intra-plot agroforestry investments, particularly in intercropping areas [10,34].

Further reform in 2003 led to the decoupling of aid, laying the groundwork for the formal recognition of agroforestry under the CAP in 2006. Intra-plot agroforestry practices became fully eligible for support under the first pillar [10]. This recognition was accompanied by technical and regulatory changes, including a prefectural exemption (2001–2006) allowing hedgerows between 2 and 4 m to qualify for support, later extended to 10 m and up to 200 trees per hectare by 2010, depending on local standards [10,12]. Complementary support mechanisms included training programs, assistance with system installation, and promotional tools to encourage adoption.

Between 2007 and 2013, several targeted measures were implemented: Measure 121-B (Plan Végétal Environnement) to support the establishment of tree-based elements, Measure 216 for non-productive investments with environmental benefits, and Measure MAET 214-I to support sustainable hedge maintenance. Additionally, Measure 8.2 (formerly 222), introduced in 2009, covered up to 80% of the installation costs of agroforestry systems in disadvantaged areas [10]. Collectively, these instruments have significantly contributed to the expansion of agroforestry and silvopastoral systems across France. In preparation for the 2015–2023 CAP programming period, an inter-institutional working group was formed in 2012 to enhance agroforestry integration. This effort led to the introduction of a revised GAEC 7 (Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition), which includes protections for hedgerows and groves containing 10 to 50 trees [22]. Green payments and rural development measures were also introduced to provide financial incentives for farmers adopting agroforestry practices.

In parallel, agroforestry development has progressed outside the CAP framework through various national and territorial initiatives aimed at integrating trees into farming systems. Notable among these are the Contrats Territoriaux d’Exploitation (CTEs, 1999) and the Contrats d’Agriculture Durable (CADs, 2003–2007), along with funding from local authorities and water agencies [39]. The first large-scale Agroforestry Development Plan (PDA) for 2015–2020 marked a major step in the national coordination and promotion of agroforestry, built around five strategic axes and involving multiple stakeholders [10]. Another significant milestone came in 2009, when the French Rural Development Plan (2007–2013) was amended to include subsidies for installing agroforestry systems on farmland [40]. These subsidies, covering up to 80% of costs, are sourced from water agencies, local governments, and the EAFRD, with regional authorities overseeing their administration [40]. The institutional agroforestry within the agricultural sector was further solidified in 2010 with the official recognition of trees as integral components of agrosystems [34]. This recognition spurred increased public funding for agroforestry beginning in 2008. Between 2008 and 2011, nearly €850,000 was allocated by the Ministry of Agriculture for agroforestry-related activities, excluding CAP funding. From 2012 to 2015, and again from 2016 to 2020, this allocation rose to approximately €2.1 million for each period [10]. The 2015 launch of the first national Agroforestry Development Plan opened new opportunities for structured support and long-term sustainability in the sector [10].

Table 2. Summary of the comparative analysis of the two policy frameworks.

Comparison Criteria	Quebec Policies	French Policies
Governance structure	Multi-level (federal, provincial, and municipal) with a central role for the provinces	Decentralized with strong state involvement through the CAP
Status of agroforestry	Low recognition as a cross-cutting system between agriculture and forestry	Official recognition in agricultural policies
Role of municipalities	Important especially from the MRCs	Support from local authorities and water agencies
Policy instruments	Climate plans for a green economy 2030, Environmental laws (LQE), programs (Ex: Prime-Vert)	Successive reforms of the CAP, agri-environmental measures, PDA (2015–2020), territorial plans (CTE and CAD)
Main limits	Institutional fragmentation, lack of unified national policy, weak financial support, and difficult intersectoral coordination	Administrative complexity and lack of funding for long-term support.

shows a summary of this comparative analysis between the two policy frameworks, thus allowing a better understanding of the differences between these regional policies.

3.2. Focus on the Specific Features of the Prime-Vert (Montérégie) vs. Breizh Bocage (Brittany) Programs

In both target regions, a variety of plans and support measures have been implemented to promote agroforestry, with the dual aim of encouraging environmentally responsible agricultural practices and fostering the sustainable development of both the agricultural and forestry sectors. Among these initiatives in Quebec, the Prime-Vert program holds a particularly strategic and central role. It serves as the principal source of funding for agroforestry-related developments, especially the establishment of windbreak hedges and riparian buffer strips. In its current iteration (2021–2026), Prime-Vert covers up to 70% of eligible costs for agri-environmental practices, underscoring its significance in supporting agroforestry initiatives across the province [27]. Given its pivotal role, it is pertinent to examine the program more closely, particularly its specific features and the perceptions of stakeholders regarding its relevance, constraints, and the barriers to its overall effectiveness.

For comparative purposes, the Breizh Bocage program in Brittany (France) warrants particular attention. Its ongoing implementation and functional similarities with Prime-Vert, notably its focus on the development of hedgerows and embankments, provide a solid foundation for a comparative analysis of the two policy environments. It is important to note that the bocage, in its modern sense, refers primarily to the network of hedges that delineate agricultural plots, and has long been a defining feature of the rural landscape in Brittany and more broadly throughout western France [41]. In contrast, while wooded plots have historically existed in Montérégie, the integration of agroforestry hedgerows is relatively recent, emerging as a response to mitigate the environmental impacts of intensive industrial agriculture [42].

3.2.1. Analysis of the Prime-Vert Program

• Specific features of the Prime-Vert program

Managed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec (MAPAQ) and aligned with the Plan d’Agriculture Durable (PAD) 2020–2030, the Prime-Vert program is specifically designed to promote sound agri-environmental practices, including agroforestry, particularly the establishment of hedgerows and riparian buffer strips [27,28]. While the program primarily covers current eligible expenses, it is important to note that its rules and criteria have evolved over time, as emphasized by Hotelier-Rous et al. [18]. For instance, maintenance of linear tree plantations, which was previously eligible for reimbursement, is no longer supported under the program’s current guidelines. Between 2002 and 2017, the Prime-Vert program supported the implementation of 2375 windbreak hedge projects across Quebec. However, a gradual decline in the number of projects was observed over this period. This trend may be partly attributed to persistent skepticism and reluctance among some agricultural producers toward tree planting initiatives [43].

Another contributing factor to this decline is the administrative burden associated with the program. Producers are required to submit reimbursement applications upon completion of their projects, a process often perceived as complex and time-consuming. In response, a network of agricultural and environmental advisors, such as the Agri-environmental Advisory Clubs, watershed organizations (OBVs), and environmental NGOs like the Regional Environmental Council (CRE), has emerged to support farmers by managing these administrative tasks and offering complementary services. In many cases, Prime-Vert subsidizes part of the professional services provided by these advisors.

Nevertheless, stakeholders continue to highlight several structural limitations. Although the program reimburses part of the costs incurred, many participants argue that the reimbursement rates remain insufficient to cover actual expenses. Additionally, the centralized management of the program by MAPAQ fails to reflect the diverse realities of Quebec’s agricultural regions, overlooking region-specific challenges such as transportation costs, access to equipment, and availability of specialized expertise. The program’s design, rooted in a broad agro-environmental vision, does not accommodate the recovery and valorization of wood from agroforestry management, nor does it offer flexibility to support the integration of fruit or nut trees adapted to local contexts. Moreover, municipal regulations, particularly those governing tree removal, are often perceived as restrictive and counterproductive to the program’s objectives.

Considering these challenges, other public and private funding sources are increasingly sought to supplement Prime-Vert subsidies. These include initiatives like ALUS, the Fondation de la Faune, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Arbre-Évolution, regional federations of the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA), regional forest development agencies, and various one-off municipal or private contributions aimed at covering costs related to specialized labor and advisory services. Despite the availability of these complementary supports, agroforestry practices remain unevenly adopted across Quebec’s agricultural landscape. For many stakeholders, while Prime-Vert continues to play a central role in financing agroforestry initiatives, its current structure is not conducive to the broader uptake of such practices.

From a research and policy coordination perspective, the absence of a dedicated policy framework and the lack of formal recognition of agroforestry within broader agricultural programming limit synergies among stakeholders. The most recent revisions to the program (2017) did not reflect a renewed policy vision but instead introduced only marginal adjustments [18]. Moreover, many of the recommendations issued by the Agroforestry Committee of the Quebec Agriculture and Agri-Food Reference Center (CRAAQ) have been largely overlooked [18]. Finally, the weakening of technical training initiatives and the limited dissemination of agroforestry knowledge have further constrained the sector’s development and institutional consolidation. Figure 4 provides a visual summary of the governance structure of the Prime-Vert program and the key actors involved in its implementation.

• Perception of stakeholders on the approach of this program

• Strengths of the Prime-Vert Program According to Stakeholders

The lexical analysis of stakeholders’ discourse regarding the strengths of the Prime-Vert program (Figure 5a) reveals a strong recurrence of specific terms, notably “producer”. This linguistic prominence reflects the central role that agricultural producers occupy in the perceived benefits of the program. Many interviewees emphasized that one of the program’s key strengths lies in its direct targeting of farmers rather than contractors or third-party service providers. This design is seen as favorable, as it grants producers greater control over the resources they receive. As one stakeholder noted: “It gives much more money to the producers and not to the contractor who does the work” (V-3). Another echoed this view, stating: “The Prime-Vert program directly finances the producer, which is positive. The other stakeholders, including the advisor, the nursery, etc., invoice the producers, and they are reimbursed by Prime-Vert” (V-2).

In addition to “producer”, other prominent terms include “funding”, “substantial”, and “operational”. The frequent mention of “funding” underscores stakeholders’ appreciation of the program’s financial support. One interviewee emphasized this by saying: “The Prime-Vert is still a nice, big program that can finance all sorts of things” (V-5), adding that “The amounts are still significant; you can get up to $40,000 per company” (V-5). Some even described the program as “extraordinary” in terms of its administrative efficiency, especially for facilitating access to subsidies: “I find that on paper, it is extraordinary” (V-3).

These insights suggest that stakeholders perceive the program’s main strengths as lying in its accessibility, its intervention mechanism directly targeted at producers, and its capacity to meet the practical needs of agricultural operations.

• Weaknesses of the Prime-Vert Program According to Stakeholders 

Despite the acknowledged strengths of the Prime-Vert program, stakeholders also identified a range of weaknesses that limit its effectiveness (Figure 5b). One major concern involves the program’s financial aspects. Interviewees described the amounts granted as insufficient, inconsistently allocated, and difficult to anticipate. One stakeholder explained: “Before, we were able to know how much MAPAQ could reimburse. But today, we are no longer able to predict” (V-3).

Others pointed out that the program provides minimal support for projects that generate commercial returns. As one respondent remarked: “It does not fund productive developments that generate commercial profits. In this respect, it limits the number of species and development possibilities” (V-2).

Another frequently cited challenge pertains to administrative delays and processing times. These are often not aligned with the timing and workflow of agricultural projects. One stakeholder noted: “The time taken to manage files is not necessarily in line with the way farmers organize their projects” (V-1). Complaints about overly complex application processes were also common: “The requests are quite heavy, too administrative” (V-1) and “The forms are super complicated” (V-5).

Communication inefficiencies also emerged as a recurring issue. Some interviewees criticized the program for being slow or unresponsive in disseminating information: “It takes a long time for certain tasks to reach all levels” (V-1). Others highlighted a disconnect between administrative decision-making and on-the-ground realities: “They make decisions based not on the ground, but on administrative agents” (V-1).

Collectively, these observations underscore a gap between the program’s intended objectives and its practical implementation. The tensions identified reflect challenges in aligning bureaucratic processes with the operational and financial realities of Quebec’s agricultural producers.

• Suggestions from Stakeholders regarding the Implementation of the Prime-Vert Program 

Stakeholder suggestions regarding the Prime-Vert program reveal a strong demand for greater simplification, clarity, and rigor in its administration. This is reflected in the frequent use of keywords such as “simplify”, “rate”, “price”, “visit”, and “rigor” (Figure 5c). A significant portion of the recommendations centers on streamlining the administrative application process for both producers and service providers. As one stakeholder plainly stated: “The administrative filing process must be simplified” (V-2).

For other actors, standardizing the financial amounts granted to producers is a key concern. One participant suggested: “They should give a median price for everyone” (V-3), advocating for a more equitable and predictable funding structure. Additional suggestions include revising reimbursement rates (V-4) and incorporating new eligible expenses into project budgets, such as compensation for an initial field visit (V-5). These recommendations reflect a broader call to align financial support mechanisms more closely with the practical realities and needs of agricultural operations.

Beyond financial aspects, several stakeholders emphasized the importance of improving project traceability through the inclusion of well-documented reports. As one respondent noted, “At the end of each project, there should be a report with photos, distances, and everything” (V-3), pointing to the need for standardized documentation to enhance transparency and accountability.

Other proposals include broadening institutional involvement, such as integrating the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) as a key stakeholder in the program’s implementation (V-3). Collectively, these suggestions reflect a shared desire to enhance the program’s rigor, transparency, and operational efficiency while ensuring that interventions are firmly grounded in the real-world needs and experiences of producers.

3.2.2. Analysis of the Breizh Bocage Program

• Specific features of the Breizh Bocage program compared to the Prime-Vert program

The Breizh Bocage program was launched in 2007 (Breizh Bocage 1/BB1), funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the Loire-Bretagne Water Agency, the Brittany Regional Council, and the departmental councils [12,44]. Designed as a regional initiative to improve water quality, the program promotes the establishment of hedgerows and embankments throughout Brittany. It supports farmers and landowners, in partnership with local authorities, in the reconstruction of hedgerow networks through both the planting of new hedges and the restoration of existing ones [12]. Now in its third phase (BB3), covering the period 2023–2027, Breizh Bocage is a flagship regional program aimed at restoring hedgerow infrastructure as a means of enhancing water quality. Organizationally, it operates through a local governance model involving elected officials from public inter-municipal cooperation bodies (EPCI), who are tasked with defining hedgerow strategies, supported by decision-making committees. Although the governance is participatory in nature, it remains centralized around elected officials, limiting the independence typically found in polycentric models such as that of Quebec’s Prime-Vert program. Nevertheless, the governance of Breizh Bocage aligns with a model of participatory territorial management [45], reinforced by local committees rooted in watershed territories, which ensure that hedgerow actions are adapted to local priorities and capacities [12]. Like Prime-Vert, the Breizh Bocage program is built on an evolving and operational system characterized by the progressive refinement of its objectives and methods. Initially, the program’s first phase (BB1) emphasized large-scale hedge planting. During the second phase (BB2), it incorporated a protective dimension under France’s Landscape Law, mandating compensation for hedge removal. The current phase (BB3) introduces a stronger focus on sustainability, aiming to integrate economic and agronomic valorization of hedgerows into modern agricultural systems. This economic focus distinguishes Breizh Bocage from Prime-Vert, which does not explicitly target projects with direct economic benefits.

The program has also become more professionalized over time. Hedgerow technicians now play a key role, providing on-the-ground support to producers, coordinating implementation, and linking environmental objectives with municipal planning documents. In earlier phases (BB1), a range of actors—including municipalities, EPCIs, and watershed organizations—were involved in project design, while implementation and hedge management were overseen by other supporting institutions. Coordination was largely handled by regional and departmental authorities that managed funding. Over time, however, the process has shifted: municipalities and EPCIs now define projects based on local needs, reinforcing the program’s territorial dimension.

In terms of financing, Breizh Bocage differs significantly from Prime-Vert. While Prime-Vert provides partial reimbursement after project completion—often perceived as insufficient, unequal, and unpredictable—Breizh Bocage initially covered 100% of project costs during its first two phases. Under BB3, a 20% co-financing contribution is now required from farmers. Furthermore, unlike Prime-Vert, funding under Breizh Bocage is disbursed directly to municipalities once projects are validated, not after completion. This pre-financing mechanism improves implementation efficiency and reduces financial uncertainty for producers.

Coordination and project management are further strengthened through regular technical and institutional meetings. In summary, while Quebec’s Prime-Vert program operates as a contractual and individualized mechanism providing direct support to farmers for various agri-environmental actions at the provincial level, Breizh Bocage is rooted in a decentralized, territorially driven governance model (Figure 6). The former emphasizes individual incentives, whereas the latter relies on collective territorial engagement. From an implementation perspective, Breizh Bocage represents a large-scale, territorialized agroforestry policy. Over 12 years, more than 5000 km of hedgerows have been planted, with approximately 4000 farms participating since 2015, representing 18% of all farms in Brittany [12]. The program covered up to 85% of Brittany during its first two phases, and 81% of the region between 2015 and 2016, through 50 territorial strategy zones [44]. In contrast, while Prime-Vert has played a foundational role in structuring agroforestry in Quebec, its adoption has been more limited. Between 2002 and 2017, 2903 windbreak hedge projects were implemented across Quebec, involving 2132 farms. Of these, 695 were in the Montérégie region, representing 10.3% of farms in that region, compared to 18% in Brittany under Breizh Bocage [46]. Furthermore, the extent of hedge development remains relatively modest in Quebec, with fewer than three meters of agroforestry hedges planted per hectare of field crops over a twelve-year period [27].

• Limits of the Breizh Bocage Program

While the Breizh Bocage program presents several advantages over Quebec’s Prime-Vert program, it also faces several limitations. Firstly, some stakeholders are critical of its orientation, which is considered primarily quantitative, where plantations serve political and marketing objectives more than truly sustainable agroecological transitions. This is what one stakeholder attempts to highlight through the following comments: “We use a lot of money, but not in the right place and in the right way. Although this reality is known, things do not change, because the tree serves above all as a marketing and political tool, in a policy of numbers. The objective is not to move towards a policy that promotes biodiversity and carbon storage, but a policy that produces differently while improving biodiversity and carbon storage. Paying farmers for carbon storage by establishing low-carbon labels is an unsustainable approach. In this sense, agroforestry systems, particularly hedgerows, disconnected from the rest of production, will not work. Support for farmers towards system transitions should be funded over several years. This is organized by territory, with the establishment of group and individual support cells” (N-1).

Secondly, one significant challenge lies in the distribution and responsibilities of the program’s technicians. These professionals are often affiliated with various organizations such as water management or wood energy agencies, which limits their full-time commitment to Breizh Bocage. As a result, the level of technician involvement varies across the region, with some responsible for territories too large to manage effectively. Additionally, the administrative procedures required by the program are often considered burdensome, due in part to the complexities associated with European funding. Such procedures are typically more appropriate for large-scale infrastructure projects rather than localized, territorial initiatives like Breizh Bocage. As such, stakeholders have expressed a need for administrative simplification to enhance the program’s accessibility and effectiveness.

Another limitation observed during the program’s first two phases is the limited involvement of producers in project management, which was largely overseen by local authorities. This governance structure led to a gradual disconnect between farmers and the hedgerows implemented on their land. Many producers came to view the hedges as external environmental infrastructure rather than integral components of their production systems. Consequently, hedges often received minimal maintenance, with efforts focused primarily on reducing their physical footprint. Moreover, because financial support was provided exclusively to local authorities, without direct compensation to farmers, as is the case in Prime-Vert, this further reinforced the disassociation of farmers from the hedges and weakened their role in managing these agroecological features. This is what two actors emphasize by specifying that “The particularity of this policy is that it provides financial support to local authorities, therefore municipalities, communities of municipalities, but it does not provide financial support directly to farmers or groups of farmers” (N-1; N-2). The inconsistent implementation approaches across municipalities also undermined regional cohesion and program uniformity.

However, the third phase of the program (BB3), launched in 2023, has introduced a more promising dynamic. This new phase emphasizes qualitative improvements, aiming for stronger coordination among stakeholders and greater emphasis on the long-term sustainability of planted hedgerows, through the inclusion of a management dimension. This is also highlighted by one stakeholder, specifying that “In the next program, they have integrated the hedge management dimension, which also finances hedge maintenance, which was not the case in previous programs” (N-1). Additionally, projects are now selected based on their potential to be effectively embedded within both the landscape and local agricultural practices. Notably, this renewed approach is generating increased interest among farmers, with a growing number actively seeking to participate in the program.

4. Discussion

The analysis of institutional actors involved in the development of agroforestry practices in Quebec reveals a system supported by a small but strategically positioned group of institutions (MAPAQ, AAFC, MELCCFP, MFFP, and MAMH) with varied contributions. This variability observed in terms of institutional contribution suggests that the current system calls for improved coordination across institutional levels to foster a more coherent and inclusive governance model. A more integrated approach, inspired by Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, could help overcome fragmentation and promote the sustainable expansion of agroforestry in both regions [10,27].

In this regard, the analysis of the French case, specifically in Brittany, provides insights into alternative organizational models for agroforestry policy implementation. The French context, and Brittany in particular, is marked by a denser and more coordinated institutional, technical, and associative landscape that supports agroforestry. Unlike Quebec, France benefits from stronger institutionalization, which enables more effective implementation through localized technical support, a comprehensive regulatory framework, and integration within broader European policy instruments such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [10,47].

Politically, the findings indicate that agroforestry policies in Quebec have evolved within a fragmented institutional environment involving multiple levels of governance [14]. Weak coordination and the limited capacity of municipalities to enforce standards, such as those concerning riparian buffer zones, hinder public recognition and legitimacy for agroforestry, especially when compared to France [29]. These results align with those of Hotelier-Rous et al. [18], who emphasize the higher level of public recognition afforded to agroforestry in France. This contrast highlights the need for more integrated governance structures and greater policy coherence to position agroforestry as a viable territorial sustainability strategy, as achieved in France. This more advanced position in agroforestry development is further supported by Lombard [17], who, in a comparative analysis with the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany, identifies France as a European leader in mainstreaming agroforestry within agricultural practices. In contrast, national governments in countries such as Germany and England allocate no substantial expenditures or policy targets to agroforestry [48].

In terms of support mechanisms, this study finds that Quebec’s primary tools are concentrated within the Prime-Vert agri-environmental program and the Plan d’Agriculture Durable (PAD) [23,29]. However, these measures are relatively narrow in scope, often targeting specific farming profiles and operating within a limited programmatic framework. This observation is echoed by Hotelier-Rous et al. [18], who underscore the scarcity of structured measures in Quebec. In contrast, France stands out with its Agroforestry Development Plan (PDA), which reflects stronger institutional recognition of agroforestry through a diverse array of strategic actions and more extensive national involvement [10]. For instance, access to CAP funding in France is contingent on the maintenance of agroforestry systems, a requirement absent in Quebec, where only general environmental criteria apply [18]. These commitments position France as one of the EU’s most supportive countries for agroecological transition [48], a success partly attributed to over 35 years of dedicated agroforestry research [17,49].

In addition, stakeholders identified several weaknesses within the Prime-Vert program, which remains Quebec’s principal funding mechanism for agroforestry projects. These limitations are extensively documented by Zaga-Mendez et al. [50], who argue that under Prime-Vert, farmers have limited influence over the types of practices eligible for support, the program’s governance structure, or the administrative barriers they encounter when attempting to comply with program requirements in the context of intensive agriculture. This marginal role reduces farmers to passive beneficiaries and risks undermining their long-term commitment to agri-environmental practices.

Other criticisms focus on the economic role of agroforestry, which is neither fully recognized nor supported under current regulations. The felling of agroforestry trees for timber or biomass is prohibited, and planting fruit or nut-bearing species on more than 50% of a hedge or buffer strip is not permitted [18,51]. These findings suggest that Quebec could benefit from adopting elements of the French model to enhance the sustainability and appeal of its agroforestry programs.

This study highlights the innovative nature of French initiatives such as the Breizh Bocage program, which is especially notable for its decentralized governance model and long-term sustainability orientation [12]. However, while these programs are innovative, they are not without structural challenges, as previously discussed. Thus, to improve their overall effectiveness, both the French and Quebecois systems must reinforce the integration of agroforestry into agricultural realities by promoting the economic value of hedgerows and involving producers more directly. Furthermore, simplifying administrative procedures and ensuring more balanced governance among stakeholders are essential for fostering inclusive and effective agroforestry development.

5. Conclusions

A comparative analysis of agroforestry policy governance in France and Quebec, particularly in the regions of Brittany and Montérégie, reveals two distinct institutional dynamics in terms of support for agroforestry practices. In Quebec, the framework is relatively fragmented, centered around a limited number of targeted programs such as Prime-Vert. In contrast, France benefits from a more extensive institutional infrastructure and stronger political recognition of agroforestry. These differences translate into more effective operational implementation in the French context, notably through territorialized initiatives such as the Breizh Bocage program.

While agroforestry governance in Quebec is sometimes hindered by limited decision-making power for farmers, the Prime-Vert program nonetheless demonstrates several key strengths. These include its direct focus on agricultural producers and a structure that many stakeholders perceive as relatively accessible. However, the French model underscores the importance of robust institutional recognition, supported by decentralized, territorially grounded, and technically structured mechanisms, as a critical lever for positioning agroforestry as a viable and sustainable solution. In this regard, Quebec could benefit from adopting a more integrated and decentralized governance model, inspired by the French experience, and from improving coordination across various levels of government. This would also involve reconsidering the economic potential of hedgerows through incentive-based mechanisms that enhance their value for farmers.

However, as a limitation of the study, it can be emphasized that the approach to selecting the actors adopted for the interviews does not allow us to claim to be exhaustive, as other secondary actors, less visible but potentially carrying relevant information, were not included. Hence the need to broaden the scope of the respondents for future studies. Finally, expanding the comparative lens to include other regions of the world facing similar challenges could further enrich the analysis and lead to the development of innovative, context-appropriate solutions to support the scaling-up of agroforestry as a tool for sustainable agricultural and environmental management.