Mapping Agroecology Networks in Burkina Faso: Governance Challenges and Pathways for Transition

Abstract

Agroecology is recognized as a resilient agricultural system amid the ecological crisis, but also as a social movement working towards better livelihoods for farmers. In Burkina Faso, the dynamics among actors promoting agroecology are not well understood. Effective governance of the agroecological transition necessitates a deeper comprehension of the interactions and networks involved. This study aims to identify, characterize, and analyze local actors and their networks to enhance governance for agroecological transition, focusing on two north and south-west regions of Burkina Faso to highlight regional differences. Using the Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS) as a conceptual framework, we conducted a literature review and facilitated focus group discussions during a workshop with stakeholders. Key participants include farmers, service providers, researchers, policymakers, NGOs, and organizations, which engage in political and technical interactions. The results show that the governance landscape is fragmented with public policies at both strategic and operational levels failing to effectively engage mainstream actors or translate into actionable support for agroecological practices. To transition agroecology from a fragmented niche to a widely adopted system, there is a critical need for consistent support for farmers, including knowledge sharing, networking opportunities, and marketing strategies.

1. Introduction

In recent years, Burkina Faso has been facing environmental, social, and security challenges. Agriculture is significantly affected by climate change, which manifests as desertification, rainfall variability, and droughts that threaten the food security of rural populations [1]. Additionally, land grabbing by real estate companies marginalizes smallholder farmers, compounding these challenges [2]. These challenges are exacerbated by insecurity, and armed conflicts cause population displacement, loss of livelihoods, and land abandonment, which significantly weakens rural communities [3]. To address these challenges, rural social movements initiated by farmers’ associations and groups, supported by research actors, non-governmental organizations, and the government [4,5], are actively engaging in “repeasantization” strategies that strongly integrate agroecology [6].

Since then, agroecology [7,8] is receiving particular attention in the political and institutional agenda, as reflected in governments, donors, and international organizations expressing their interest in this approach [9]. The definition of agroecology covers three dimensions: seen as a practice, a science, and a political movement [9,10,11,12].

Agroecology, in its holistic approach, is above all a political project aimed at reconciling the economy and the environment and bringing the agricultural world and citizens closer together [13]. Farmers and farmers’ associations have their own visions of agroecology, which are reflected in their definitions of the term. According to the Association for Research and Training in Agroecology, agroecology “means intensive production without damaging the environment”, while for the Tiipaalga association [14] agroecology is “the sustainable intensification and contextualization of agricultural production”, according to the National Federation of Naam Groups. Agroecology is “the construction of a sustainable rural society through its agriculture and social organization”, according to the Niassan agricultural cooperative; “it is farming with the environment in mind” [14]. Other studies highlight the environmental, social, and economic benefits of this mode of agricultural production [9,15,16].

Although some studies have shown the emergence of agroecology in Burkina Faso through the creation of a large network of actors [4,5], the involvement of farmers in crop rotation and association [17,18], and the dissemination of conservation agriculture [19,20], the adoption of agroecological practices is still quite slow in Burkina Faso [5]. Furthermore, new agroecological practices are struggling to be scaled up and are still isolated and applied locally. The work of Tega et al. [18] shows that a wide range of endogenous, but inefficient, practices still need to be improved. Ebile et al. [21] identified a set of constraints to the scaling up of agroecological practices in two contrasting regions of Burkina Faso.

Thus, there is also a need to identify the actors involved in promoting agroecology. Existing works, in particular [4,5], highlight an ecosystem of actors in Burkina Faso involved in promoting agroecology. Ranging from research actors and non-governmental organizations to government actors, farmers, and other farmer organizations, a system exists for sharing knowledge and information regarding agroecology. However, these studies do not shed light on the nature and frequency of the existing relationships between the actors involved in the transition to agroecology. Furthermore, the work of Rueff et al. [22] shows a lack of coordination between the actors on the ground. The FAO notes that, to date, knowledge on agroecology, actors, and networks is still insufficient, with most studies focusing on gray literature [19]. It is necessary to clarify which actors, networks, and platforms are involved, and which services are mobilized, including their quality. Leclercq [23] conducted work on actors in agroecology but did not consider the links between actors, nor the nature and quality of the links between them. To this end, a study of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) [24,25,26] in the regions is valuable. As a concept, AKIS has been defined as, “a set of agricultural organizations and/or persons, and the links and interactions between them, engaged in the generation, transformation, transmission, storage, retrieval, integration, diffusion, and utilization of knowledge and information, with the purpose of working synergistically to support decision-making, problem solving and innovation in agriculture” [27]. The framework—seen from its analytical and diagnostic role—is suited to analyzing the coordination between actors and identifying potential system failures that hinder the adoption of agroecological practices. More than providing just a simple list of actors, AKIS makes it possible to visualize the structure of networks, identify central and peripheral actors, and understand the nature and frequency of their interactions, defined as the infrastructural view of AKIS [28]. This directly addresses the gap highlighted in other studies [4,5], concerning the nature and frequency of relationships in Burkina Faso. AKIS provides information on how knowledge about agroecological practices (crop rotation, intercropping, conservation agriculture, etc.) circulates among farmers, researchers, extension workers, and NGOs. This will help explain why certain practices are struggling to become widespread and why inefficient endogenous practices persist in the case of municipalities in Burkina Faso.

This work sets itself the overall objective of analyzing the networks of local actors of the agroecological transition. By applying the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) framework, we specifically (i) identify actors involved in the agroecological transition in Burkina Faso, (ii) examine the networks of actors in two geographical areas, and (iii) discuss governance in the transition towards agroecology.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Conceptual Framework

In this study, the Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS) [24,25,26] was applied as a conceptual framework. AKIS refers to a system that “connects people and institutions to promote mutual learning and generate, share, and use technologies, knowledge, and information related to agriculture”, World Bank (2012), cited by [29]. The framework considers several actors, including researchers, farmers, extension actors, and agricultural training actors. All advocate the use of knowledge and information from different resources to optimize livelihoods.

Conceptually, the AKIS approach places farmers at the center of this knowledge network. However, power relations and inequalities are not analyzed within this framework. In our case, the study of actors allows to identify and analyze the organizations that produce and disseminate knowledge and services in the field of agroecology in Burkina Faso. The use of this framework provides an opportunity to capture organizational diversity in order to better understand the actors who produce knowledge in the particular agricultural setting (e.g., at the national, regional, or sectorial scale) and for particular innovations. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) provides a structured framework to improve the way that knowledge and innovation are generated, shared, and applied. AKIS focuses not only on technologies but also on people, relationships, institutions, and enabling environments. It is a dynamic network that shows the links between farmers, advisors, researchers, educators, policymakers, private actors, and civil society that can be used to foster co-creation, joint problem-solving, and innovation uptake. It is especially important in the context of agroecology innovation transition, where there is a strong ambition to close gaps between research and practice while facilitating mutual learning and sustainable transformation [30]. In our study, AKIS is used in the field of agroecological innovations, providing an analysis of the actors involved in the agroecological transition in Burkina Faso. The example in Figure 1 shows a generic AKIS diagram adapted from Kania and Żmija [31]. This is used as a tool for discussion during focus groups to identify actors according to their functions.

2.2. Choice of Study Sites

Two geographical areas were chosen for this study (see Figure 2). The south-west, comprising the provinces of Houet and Tuy, and the north, comprising the provinces of Sandbondtenga and Passoré in Burkina Faso. These are two geographical areas with different characteristics. The two geographical areas, north and south-west, were chosen considering their main differentiations, namely in terms of their climatic, natural, and social characteristics.

The south-west is located in the Sudanian zone [32] which is located between the 900 and 1100 mm isohyets. There are two seasons: the wet season and the dry season. The dry season lasts from four to six months (May to October). The wet season is relatively long, with six months of rain (May to November) [33]. The soils are mainly lithosols, tropical ferruginous soils, ferralitic soils, and hydromorphic soils. The area has a Sudanian climate, characterized by the predominance of cereal crops (mainly corn) and cash crops (cotton and cashew). The vegetation is dominated by open and gallery forests, with a wooded and shrubby savannah. During the rainy season, a grassy layer can be observed.

The north is in the Sudano-Sahelian zone, which is positioned between isohyets 500 and 700. It is drier, with the dry season extending from November to April and the rainy season extending from June to October. Annual precipitation varies between 400 mm and generally does not exceed 800 mm [34]. The shrubby and grassy savannah dominates in this climatic zone, with essentially tropical ferruginous soils. Agriculture is rainfed, with a predominance of cereal crops (sorghum, corn, and cow pea), market gardening (tomatoes and cabbage) and cash crops (sesame).

2.3. Methods Chosen for Data Collection

To study the system of actors involved in the agroecological transition, we used a qualitative data collection method. An in-depth literature review was carried out beforehand. This was supported by a mapping of the actors carried out during one workshop where two focus group sessions were conducted, guided by the AKIS framework presented above (see Section 2.1).

2.3.1. Literature Review

The literature review encompassed a collection of scientific documents enhanced by the gray literature. Conducted between 2021 and 2024, it covered materials from 1992 to 2025. The scientific literature included scientific articles, theses, and other scholarly works. The gray literature consisted of reports from national and international organizations, gathered in both print and electronic formats from various institutions and online sources. In total, 39 documents were collected for this research.

Several steps were necessary in the collection process. After defining the research topic, we identified keywords without relying on software. This involved pinpointing relevant terms, synonyms, and associated concepts. Our primary search terms included the following: agroecology, agroecological transition, agroecological, agroecological practices, and sustainable agricultural practices.

We then chose specific databases for our search, consulting sites such as cairn.info, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and theses.fr. After this preliminary research, certain key terms drew our attention, leading us to refine our search further. Consequently, we focused the literature review specifically on actors in agroecology and the governance of agroecology in Burkina Faso. This approach allowed us to select documents pertinent to the research topic, enabling an examination of the current state of agroecology, the involved actors, and the various platforms.

2.3.2. Multi-Stakeholder Workshop with Focus Group Discussions

We applied the AKIS approach in a multi-stakeholder workshop to identify the actors involved in the deployment of agroecology. In March 2022, 28 participants attended the AKIS workshop which was held from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the INERA campus in Ouagadougou. We worked with two focus groups, with participants from the north and south-west regions, respectively. The workshop plenary session was facilitated by one experienced researcher, while sub-sessions (for north and south-west regions) were moderated by trained co-facilitators fluent also in local languages. The language used in the workshop was mainly French, which was the language that all participants were most familiar with. Farmers who were not fluent in speaking French responded in their local language, but all farmers stated that they understood French sufficiently to follow the discussions. In inviting participants to the workshop, we ensured a balance in terms of gender, age, and profession. The participants represent key stakeholders in both zones of Burkina Faso. The groups included farmers, service providers, representatives of the ministry of agriculture, NGO representatives, and researchers. The farmers participating from the south-west (Sudanese) zone came from the municipalities of Lena and Béréba, while those from the north (Sudano-Sahelian zone) came from Arbollé, Nagréongo, and Korsimoro.

Of great importance was the institutional affiliation of these participants, with their different mandates cutting across the two regions (north and south-west) as well as having national coverage. Moreover, we assume that their affiliations and corresponding mandates strongly influenced their perceptions of, and orientations in, the discussions during the workshop.

In detail, the actors with the following affiliations attended. At the national level, one representative from the government (Ministry of Agriculture), six researchers from the national research institute (INERA), two representatives from NGOs, one national input provider, one representative of a national farmers’ association, and one representative of the national cotton industry attended. From the north, four representatives of local government bodies, eight farmers, and one representative of a farming association attended. From the south-west, three farmers were present at the workshop, supported by national researchers from the south-western region.

As facilitators, we welcomed the participants and acknowledged their awareness of the importance of promoting agroecology in their regions. After presenting the topic to the participants, they were divided into two groups: one representing the south-west and the other the north. We then introduced the AKIS approach and the methods applied, after which participants identified key actors, networks, and platforms within their areas. The groups proceeded to characterize the connections between actors. This culminated in plenary discussions focused on these links, leading to conversations about public policies and the governance of agroecology by various stakeholders.

Throughout the process, we documented the sessions by making audio recordings, taking photographs, and jotting down manual notes to capture relevant details.

The guiding questions for the discussion groups included the following:

• What agroecology platforms and networks exist in the target regions?
• Which actors, organizations, and stakeholders are involved in promoting agroecology, with a particular focus on
  • Connections and interactions between these actors;
  • Types of interactions;
  • Nature and quality of interactions among these actors.
• What governance strategies do stakeholders employ in agroecology?

The focus group participants characterized these networks of actors involved in the promotion of agroecology. During this exercise, we use the word “participant” to describe the actors who attended the focus groups and the term “actors” to refer to the subjects of the network exercise. The participants referred to their own experiences to provide their assessment of their network. This approach has helped us to better understand the complexity of agroecological practices, the actors, networks, and platforms associated with them.

Prior to the workshop, a draft diagram (Figure 3) was developed in consultation with Burkinabe experts from the FAIR-Sahel project, as a part of which this work was carried out. Guided by this example of a network diagram displaying an AKIS, participants were asked to identify the platforms and networks of actors they were familiar with, the links between these actors, and their quality. They then wrote down the name of the actors they work with in their territories on post-its. These post-its were then placed on a large poster. The next step was to draw the links between the actors, specifying the nature of the link (technical, political, awareness-raising, advocacy, training, etc.) and its quality (strong, average, or weak).

The objective here is to know the degree of importance of the link on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 = a weak link, 2 = a average link, and 3 = a strong links. The quality of the link gives an indication of the importance of the different knowledge exchanges that the actors maintain between them, in relation to agroecological practices. Participants were asked to qualitatively rank the quality of the links according to the degree of influence of targeted actors on farmers’ decision-making processes.

2.3.3. Data Processing and Analysis

During the literature search, we took following steps to analyze the documents collected. In the analysis of gray literature, we first selected documents based on relevant keywords related to our research. Following this, we conducted a critical examination of these documents, focusing on sources that specifically address the genesis of agroecology, its practices, and the key actors involved. We compared these sources to assess their relevance to our objectives and to facilitate organization.

All documents were read in depth to understand the methods, results, and conclusions. Key information was listed, including the theories, gaps, controversies, and contributions of each article. A critical analysis was carried out, evaluating the methodological quality of the studies, the relevance of their results, and the reliability of their sources. We then grouped the articles by common themes, methods used or similar results, and highlighted trends, convergences, and divergences. A structure was created by organizing the review in a logical manner (introduction, main body, and conclusion). We concluded this analysis with a clear and concise report, which was cross-checked by at least two co-authors. This analysis enabled us to diagnose the dynamics and origins of agroecology.

To process the data collected from the AKIS focus groups, we created representative tables that illustrate the system of actors, their connections, and the nature of these relationships. After collecting the data from the focus groups, we undertook several processing steps. Initially, we manually transcribed the audio recordings. This involved carefully listening to each recording, identifying the speakers, and documenting their contributions in a Word document. We then performed a thematic content analysis, allowing us to construct categories and create a thematic matrix. Finally, we analyzed the connections identified in network graphs and compiled a comprehensive report aligned with our objectives. Again, at each step of the process, the results were cross-checked by at least two co-authors. In this study, the results of the literature review are used to back up the results from the focus group discussions. The primary language used throughout the study—including in workshops, data collection, reporting, internal communication, and the initial draft of the manuscript—was French. Subsequently, this was translated into English and carefully reviewed by researchers fluent in both languages, all of whom participated in the workshop and who are also co-authors. All subsequent work on the manuscript was conducted in English.

3. Results

3.1. Actors Involved in the Promotion of Agroecology in the North and South-West of Burkina Faso

In both regions covered by the study, the results of the network analysis show that a large number of actors are involved in promoting agroecology (Figure 4); see also Appendix A for more details on which organizations were mentioned for each region. In the north, the most frequently cited are NGOs (twenty-four actors), followed by the government (eleven actors), farmer-based organizations (FBO), referred to as activists by the participants (ten actors), and media actors (eight actors). The figure (and the table in the Appendix A) shows significant organizational diversity and illustrates the actors who produce and exchange knowledge in the agricultural world in both regions. The method shows that in both regions, several actors with diverse facets are mentioned. NGOs (mainly in the north), research actors, and state actors (through ministries) are listed as actors supporting agroecological initiatives among farmers. Agroecology activists, manufacturing actors, input and service farmers, and the media support the other actors.

The south-west is characterized by a strong presence of service providers and FBOs (Figure 4). Service providers are the most frequently cited actors (ten actors), followed by FBOs (seven actors). Farmer organizations represent sesame, milk, and cotton farmers. Processors of cereal products, animal products, and fruits and vegetables are also part of this group. Researchers also support farmers, intervene to support development, and work with farmers with regard to agroecology. Through the Ministry of Agriculture, the group of state actors offers technical services, such as the ZAT (Technical Support Zone).

Several financial actors are mentioned, such as the People’s Bank, CORIS BANK, ECOBANK, and BHDF (Agricultural Bank of Faso). Media actors are responsible for communication. These organizations comprise local radio stations, the written press, and online platforms such as WhatsApp groups, websites, etc. Participants from the south-western region consider that suppliers of agricultural inputs and equipment are essential.

3.2. Characterization of the Type and Frequencies of Relationships Between the Different AKIS Actors

3.2.1. Type of the Links Between the AKIS Actors

The results related to the type of links between farmers and other actors show three main types of links in the two regions (Figure 5 and Figure 6): technical, political, and information (awareness-raising) support. Technical interactions are represented by black lines. Technical links are all relationships aimed at technically supporting farmers. This implies that certain actors provide farmers with sustainable and agroecological knowledge. Links related to political interactions are presented by red lines in the figures, while awareness-raising and supporting interactions are shown with green lines.

Technical Links

Regarding technical links, for the north, the main actors involved are NGOs, the government, through projects and programs to support the agroecological transition, and processors of agricultural goods that are also involved in marketing efforts. To a lesser extent, financial institutions and providers of inputs and equipment are engaged with the farmers.

In the south-west, the government’s role in technical support is seen as weaker than compared to the north, affecting farmers only through policies. The strongest links on the technical level with farmers are seen towards service providers, who support farmers in technical issues, and to a lesser extent towards processors of agricultural products. Market institutions play a strong role in farmers’ marketing efforts.

The support of the government (especially through extension systems) and local authorities is demonstrated through their technical services and the projects they implement. In the north, the government is seen as an actor that provides technical services through extension agents as well as coordination roles towards the farmers. However, this is mainly seen in the north (Figure 5), while in the south-west (Figure 6) this link was not highlighted by the participants. In addition, the government provides grants and subsidies for inputs and agricultural equipment intended for farmers, which also has been noted by the participants only for the north. As a result, they improve their production conditions by obtaining inputs at a lower cost as compared to purchases from the market. NGOs provide mainly financial and technology assistance in both regions.

Political Links

In the north (Figure 5), interactions through political actions (symbolized by red lines) reveal two pathways, one between activists such as farmer organizations and farmers. Through these interactions, farmer organizations participate in raising awareness among farmers to support their communities and express their opinions in the decision-making process. The other path involves activists interacting with government bodies on the topic of policies related to agroecology.

In the south-west (Figure 6) the role of activists such as farmer organizations is taken over by NGOs who mainly interact with the government, while the government influences farmers directly through the implementation of policies. A particular example is the mobilization in favor of integrating agroecology into public policies and promoting food sovereignty. Movements that are led by many different actors, from NGOs such as OXFAM, CENABIO, INADESS Formation, etc., aim to raise awareness among ministries responsible for regulating subsidies to direct their aid towards organic fertilizers rather than chemical fertilizers.

Awareness and Capacity Building Links

In both regions, for actions aimed at raising awareness, capacity building, and scaling, research actors carry out trials on farmers’ fields (green lines). These actions are aimed at strengthening farmers’ skills. The main actions are on-farm experimentation and raising awareness of agroecological knowledge through training and the implementation of demonstration plots. In some cases, farmers set up demonstration plots dedicated to research and on-farm trials. In these cases, new crop varieties and agroecological methods are tested in the fields.

As part of the FAIR/SAHEL project, different agroecological methods were tested in the fields of farmers in both regions. Crop association, rotation, and zaï farming (for the north) are among these agroecological practices. As such, experiments with new crop varieties and agroecological methods in the farmers’ fields are carried out. This is also the case for NGOs that cooperate with research institutions in order to promote the independence of small farmers from synthetic inputs. NGOs also work with farmers to support them in the framework of projects, while implementing agroecological methods. As part of the training and awareness-raising among farmers, NGOs set up specialized facilitators to support farmers who wish to engage in the agroecological transition process, supporting them in their quest for independence.

In both regions, the media helps to raise awareness among farmers and households.

3.2.2. The Quality of Interactions Between AKIS Actors

In the south-west and north regions, farmers’ associations play a key role in promoting agroecological initiatives (Figure 5 and Figure 6), as reflected in the strong links between them and farmers. According to participants, projects and programs are designed to support the livelihoods of farmers.

Low-level links are found in the relationship between farmers and the media, as well as those between farmers and financial actors. According to farmers, these relations are rare. As one of them stated, “we only observe the media when there is an action, or an activity, whether it is NGOs, research, or the government. Otherwise, we have no real link with the media”.

The actions of NGOs, research and other actors in the same sectors of intervention are generally poorly coordinated. This explains the weak links between farmers and input distributors, as seen in the case of the north (Figure 5). The link is low due to the weakness of the distribution network, leaving the system fragmented. In addition, there is still a lack of awareness regarding existing inputs. However, in the south-west, participants stress strong links to service providers and market institutions.

It is also important to emphasize that NGOs train farmers on how to produce their own organic fertilizers, which means that they do not necessarily have to buy them. However, regarding the link between research and other partners such as NGOs or associations, this link is at an average level. This particularly highlights the importance of improving synergies between agroecology actors, beyond the process of research trials carried out by farmers.

Some actors in the regions maintain strong, meaningful relationships based on regular interactions. These connections are essential for building trust and fostering collaboration. In agroecological projects, the bond between farmers and researchers exemplifies this. Their frequent engagement and shared commitment to promoting sustainable agricultural practices highlight the importance of this relationship. Focus group participants consistently emphasized the critical nature of this connection, recognizing its role in enhancing the understanding and adoption of agroecological methods.

To boost farmers’ capacities, researchers establish “experimentation and training” relationships, focusing on disseminating agroecological knowledge. In the challenging Sudano-Sahelian climate, where soil degradation is prevalent, researchers collaborate with farmers to explore solutions. As described above, farmers provide their own fields for research and experimentation, testing new crop varieties and agroecological practices.

The FAIR/SAHEL project illustrates this collaboration, experimenting with methods such as crop association, rotation, and zaï farming in the selected communities of the regions. Farmers involved in this program actively test agroecological innovations, promoting a culture of cooperation with researchers.

To enhance smallholder farmers’ independence from synthetic inputs and ensure food security, NGOs support them through agroecological initiatives, establishing technical links with farmers. These organizations mobilize funds to improve farmers’ skills, aiming for autonomy. They teach farmers to produce their own organic inputs, reducing reliance on external suppliers. Additionally, agricultural schools offer training in agroecological production. NGOs often integrate into broader agroecological research projects, collaborating with the state and local authorities, which implement various programs to promote agroecological practices, primarily benefiting farmers. Agricultural technical services play often only a minor supporting role in these initiatives due to the limited funding of governmental extension services.

3.3. The Actors in Governance of Agroecology

As shown in Section 3.1, about one hundred actors were listed by the focus group participants as influential in the governance of the agroecological transition in the two areas concerned (57 in the north and 43 in the south-west), in terms of occurrence and visibility (see Appendix A). In terms of diversity, the results show a great spatial coverage of the agroecological actors in both areas, with almost all of the identified agroecological actors being visible in the north and the south-west. In terms of the intensity and presence of agroecological actors, for the northern area, NGOs emerge in first position with a total of more than 17 agroecological actors out of 57. They are followed by the media/press with 11 occurrences out of 57. The government shows a total of 7 actors out of 57. The presence of market actors, the agri-food industry, and finance seem weak.

In contrast, in the case of the south-western zone, the intensity of agroecology actors is evenly distributed among all types of actors, with however a slight dominance of NGOs (10 out of 43), followed by processors (6 out of 43) and farmers (6 out of 43).

Finally, despite the high diversity and density of economic actors in the north compared to in the south-west, an interesting observation is the dominant number of processors, farmers, and financial economic actors in the south-west compared to the north.

4. Discussion

4.1. Applicability of AKIS in the Context of Burkina Faso

Utilizing the AKIS framework in this research has highlighted a diversity of actors, including individual and group farmers, research and development institutions, public and private extension services, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), policymakers, input and service providers, the private sector, and consumers. In Burkina Faso, this diversity is particularly evident in the participation of farmer groups, research institutions such as INERA (Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles), national and international NGOs, and various government initiatives [4,5]. However, the limited number of participants may not represent the full picture of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) in the regions. Furthermore, the composition of participants—primarily well-educated individuals connected to formal institutions—might have hindered some farmers from openly sharing their opinions, a fact that might limit the generalization of the results to all of Burkina Faso.

However, challenges arise regarding the fluidity and dynamism of the networks. Innovation networks are inherently unstable, constantly adapting to political, economic, social, and security contexts. In Burkina Faso, high levels of security instability and population displacement [35] can swiftly alter the composition and interactions of actors within local AKIS, complicating the capture of a stable and representative ‘snapshot’ of these networks. While AKIS effectively highlights relationships among actors, it may not fully account for power dynamics, conflicts of interest, and inequalities that significantly impact knowledge flows and the adoption of innovations. For instance, issues such as land grabbing by property developers [2] or the influence of certain donors can skew priorities and marginalize specific actors, thereby constraining the scope for agroecological innovation. Thus, any AKIS analysis should be supplemented with a critical perspective on these ongoing dynamics.

Since this study is mainly concerned with describing the AKIS based on the results of the workshop and a literature review, there was no opportunity to prioritize certain measures. Prioritization depends on the capability of all affected actors, their budgets, and other limitations. This can only be achieved in the context of future studies.

4.2. Actors at Different Levels Committed to Promoting Agroecology

The results of our work highlight the existence of rural social movements in the study areas. This is in line with the work of Milhorance et al. [6] who speak of social movements emerging in Burkina Faso and in some places in West Africa around food security which hold agroecology as a pillar. We can see a great organizational diversity of actors involved in the promotion of agroecology in the north and south-west of Burkina Faso, which complements to the idea of pluralism of AKIS [36], filling the gap created by the reduced public extension involvement [37]. As demonstrated by other studies [24,25], these figures then allowed us to better understand those who produce and exchange agricultural knowledge.

Indeed, there is a wide range of actors involved in promoting agroecology in northern and south-western Burkina Faso. In the north, the most cited are NGOs, followed by media actors and the government. In the south-west, however, farmers and NGOs have the highest propensity, followed by research and funding actors. This corroborates the results of other authors [38], who have also highlighted a wide network of actors in the country. Organizations work together to promote agroecology in the two climatic zones studied. For each region, particularities appear; for the south-western region, cotton production means that networks are organized differently from the north, where more extensive agricultural production is dominant. Research and extension services are active in both regions. We observed that NGOs were cited more frequently in the north region (24 citations) compared to only three mentions in the south-west, which could be a result of the increasing insecurity levels in regions further away from the capital city Ouagadougou.

From the infrastructural perspective (static view) used in analyzing AKIS [28], various actors were identified as essential to the promotion of agroecology in the municipalities. The presence of local and larger-scale actors was noted, demonstrating a multi-stakeholder and multi-level approach to promoting agroecology in Burkina Faso. Our results show that farmers are well-involved in agroecological initiatives. This observation is also made by [38], considering the farmer as the main actor of agroecology. We also showed that the actors maintain links between them, as in the work of Bellon and Ollivier [39]. The strength of the interactions varies, with strong links between farmers and research, moderate links between research and other organizations, and weak links between farmers and input distributors. It appears that research actors and NGOs implement co-creation and participatory approaches [40,41,42], which allow farmers to modernize their local and endogenous knowledge [1]. The literature review showed an emergence of agroecology in Burkina Faso, which was confirmed by the actors present in the focus groups. However, it is clear from the results we collected that the system is very fragmented.

The actors each lead their own agroecological initiatives with their funds. During the focus groups, the participants showed that there is no joint action between the actors of agroecology in Burkina Faso, justifying the work of Milhorance et al. [6].

4.3. Governance of Policies Related to Agroecology

According to the participants, the government has not remained insensitive to the issues surrounding the identity of agroecology. It is becoming increasingly involved in the governance of agroecology with the stakeholders, reflected in its first attempts to bring together stakeholders around a common definition of agroecology, related to the attempt at public coordination of AKIS actors [28,37]. This is how an officer was appointed within the Ministry of Agriculture and Hydro-agricultural Development (MAAH). He supervises agroecology stakeholders, and works with them on advocacy, including the implementation of agricultural policies favorable to agroecology. However, for now there are only rather general national agricultural policies, laws, and strategies that govern the coordination of agroecological activities. These policy documents include agroecological practices without necessarily mentioning agroecology as such. More recently, the ministry in charge of agriculture has developed policy documents to organize the promotion of agroecology. The national strategy and the charter of agroecology have been developed and are in the process of being adopted. The charter is an agreement between the actors, which sets out the foundations and values they defend, and how they can pool their efforts to address issues such as advocacy. The charter is only binding on the signatory parties and helps manage issues related to tensions over the fundamentals.

This means that for the policy and strategy to be effective, all stakeholders must be a signatory to develop the projects or actions they wish to put into practice. The National Agroecology Strategy (2023–2027) is facing a difficult context. Its vision is that “by 2027, agroecology will be the driving force for sustainable, competitive agro-sylvo-pastoral, fisheries and wildlife production that is respectful of the environment, consumer health and cultural values, and resilient to climate change” (SND-AE, 2023, p25). In the context of climate change, this policy document aims to increase production through the implementation of agroecological initiatives. Building on climate diversity, the national strategy should enable large-scale agroecology and better governance.

The governance of agroecology also relies on the stakeholders involved in advocacy. Thus, the latter were able to give a major boost to the dynamics of agroecology. Advocacy began in 2017, and it was only two years later (2019) that agroecology was included in the 2019–2020 strategic action plan. Efforts still need to be made to find funding for the concrete implementation of these plans. Nevertheless, the momentum is already there; with awareness and knowledge of research and development projects and programs, things will go much faster, according to the ministry’s actors.

It is necessary for stakeholders to find time for exchange to better interact together on agroecological initiatives. Taking the “Dynamics for an Agroecological Transition in Senegal” (DyTAES) [6,43,44] as an example, the stakeholders of the agroecological transition in Burkina Faso would gain strength if they joined forces to work together. This organization of stakeholders of the agroecological transition in Senegal has succeeded in bringing together a wide range of stakeholders, including local elected officials, governmental and non-governmental organizations, farmers and their associations, research organizations, and any other stakeholder with a vision of promoting sustainable agriculture through rational management of natural resources, to create a dynamic movement.

Drawing inspiration from an existing and proven movement would be a plus for Burkinabe actors. They would gain efficiency and strength in terms of advocacy and impact on conventional agriculture. In general, better coordination and greater awareness could strengthen the links between these actors and improve sustainable agricultural practices in the region, leading back to the above assumptions by Kidd et al. on the role of the public coordination of actors [37]. According to the participants, for agroecology to take root, it is necessary to create a space for exchange at the local level to facilitate interactions, e.g., at the municipal or even village level. Such arenas must be supported by strong structures at the municipal level. This is the case for the representations of the ministries of agriculture, town halls, etc. These structures must focus on sustainability issues and initiatives. In this way, the movement rises from the local level to the more regional and national levels. In this way, each actor brings their specificities and promotes them in the existing arenas.

4.4. Recommendations from Focus Group Discussions

The following recommendations are drawn from discussions within the focus groups. They represent a consensus among the workshop participants after reflecting on the suggested arguments.

• Lay the fundamental foundations for the definition of agroecology.

Stakeholders are struggling to agree on a common definition of agroecology. According to the participants of the focus groups, there is a great deal of tension around the definition of agroecology among opposing several actors who find it convenient to evolve separately according to their own perception of agroecology. Thus, the participants expressed themselves in favor of an effective governance of agroecology in Burkina Faso. They gave their point of view on the governance of agroecology and strategies to make it more effective and stronger.

This proposal is consistent with the work of Milhorance et al. and Sajaloli et al. [4,6]. Indeed, although global institutions provide definitions of agroecology, focus group participants assert that this does not say exactly what needs to be performed. They added that while it is true that global policies and strategies can provide content, the weight of this policy must be felt in actions at the farm and field level.

The only way to achieve this is to specifically translate some of the general ideas, which are generic in nature, into specific agroecology policies that describe the details of agroecology. While reaffirming the above position, some participants added the need for follow-up. For them, monitoring is important, especially since the ministry often bases agroecology on traditional techniques. This contradicts what non-governmental organizations on the ground are advocating, supporting agroecology and transforming it on a larger scale, in line with the expectations of donors, who prioritize the improvement of sustainable agricultural systems.

• Promote training in the effective management of agroecology by the government.

Agricultural technicians and extension agents who leave school must be better equipped [45]. This was particularly the case in the past, when most of these graduates were often equipped mainly with theory and with limited practical experience. However, the trend has changed, with more than 356 agricultural agents trained by 2021, with the aim of serving as relay agents for the continuing training of other local agents, and also to support farmers in the field, but this is only a starting point. As shown by the work of Sawadogo [46], it was also highlighted that for the year 2021, thanks to the PACTE, the same training themes have been suggested. It is also planned to deepen the skills of field technicians thanks to the advocacy of CNABio and agroecology professionals. Participants also stressed that while government training is essential, it is the practical application of the knowledge gained on the ground that is crucial. NGOs are generally just as active and sometimes even more effective in practical terms. This is especially true since they have their own resources and the freedom to focus on specific topics. However, when it comes to government intervention, it is the state budget that is subject to several constraints.

• Optimize financial support for natural inputs.

For farmers who participated in the focus groups, many of them remain in the traditional system (defined by using synthetic inputs). It is therefore imperative that policies prioritize subsidies for the purchase and production of organic inputs. This would be a lever to promote the transition to more environmentally friendly agricultural methods. However, the pressure on the government remains strong to reduce budgets dedicated to this system in favor of systems that use natural resources (such as agroecology). Even if the transition is not easy, progress has been made. Finally, participants are convinced that subsidies for chemical fertilizers [43] will be reduced in favor of organic or environmentally friendly inputs. According to them, the current regime of organic farming or agroecology is considered a political strategy. They even stressed that all this is part of the political plan.

• General observations.

The participants reported the lack of the following essential elements in agroecology in Burkina Faso. Participants reported several essential gaps in agroecology in Burkina Faso, as follows: an absence of a unified framework, evidenced by actors working in a dispersed manner despite pursuing the same objectives; insufficient scientific evidence, which is necessary before establishing effective support services; and a shortage of high-quality, abundant information, which hinders informed discussion and coordinated action in the field.

5. Conclusions

At the time of the study, the literature showed that agroecology is not new in Burkina Faso. For several decades, numerous actors, projects, and programs have been involved in promoting agroecology. However, given the dynamic political development in Burkina Faso, the results presented in our study can constantly change, either in favor or disfavor of an agroecological transition. The objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and analyze local actors and their networks involved in promoting agroecology, with the aim of ensuring effective governance of the agroecological transition. The results can support stakeholders’ effective interaction with those who wish to progress towards agroecological intensification of their production. By adopting and applying the AKIS framework for both conceptual and analytical purposes in focus groups with diverse participants, we identified the structures, actors, and networks related to agroecology in two targeted regions of Burkina Faso (north and south-west). A considerable number of actors were identified in the study area. Besides farmers, these were researchers, NGOs, and organizations specializing in agricultural transformation.

Focus group participants demonstrated that farmers play a crucial role in this transition, partly evolving into a social movement. They maintain strong relationships with researchers, non-governmental organizations, political actors, and civil society. The results showed that agroecological governance is characterized by a landscape of extremely dispersed actors with little dynamic interaction between them. These results highlight the importance of deepening knowledge regarding the interactions between multiple actors and promoting participatory research. In detail, the results of our study call for better coordination of actors, a clear definition and implementation of agroecology into existing and future national policies, and increased support for farmers and inclusive governance systems. In this way, agroecology can provide a pathway to more sustainable agricultural systems which rely less on external inputs, increase efficiency, and support food security and sovereignty.