# Niche orchestration in fragmented ecologies of intermediation: evidence from agroecological transitions in Senegal

R. Belmin, B. Turnheim, B. Gaillard, S. Boillat, P. Bottazzi, A. Mbodj, Allison Loconto

► To cite this version:

R. Belmin, B. Turnheim, B. Gaillard, S. Boillat, P. Bottazzi, et al., Niche orchestration in fragmented ecologies of intermediation: evidence from agroecological transitions in Senegal. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2026, 59, pp.101095. 10.1016/j.eist.2025.101095. hal-05532906

HAL Id: hal-05532906

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05532906v1

Submitted on 2 Mar 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Niche orchestration in fragmented ecologies of intermediation: evidence from agroecological transitions in Senegal

R. Belmin<sup>a,b,c,*</sup> <sup>10</sup>, B. Turnheim<sup>d,e</sup>, B. Gaillard<sup>d</sup>, S. Boillat<sup>f,g</sup>, P. Bottazzi<sup>h</sup>, A. Mbodj<sup>i</sup>, A. Loconto<sup>c,d</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Socio-technical niche

Intermediation

Multi-level perspective on transitions

Agroecology

Senegal

## ABSTRACT

Agroecological transitions in the Global South often unfold within complex ecologies of intermediation, shaped by atomised project logics, donor dependence and transnational interventions. In such contexts, the coexistence of multiple intermediaries - NGOs, research bodies, farmer organisations, etc. - can hinder rather than foster niche development. This article analyses how orchestration can emerge as a governance mechanism that provides cooperation and symbiosis within such fragmented ecologies of intermediation. Drawing on a longitudinal study of the Senegalese agroecological niche (1980–2025), we trace how a locally rooted NGO mobilised and steered an advocacy coalition - DyTAES (French acronym for ‘Dynamique pour une transition agroécologique au Sénégal’) - to connect grassroot initiatives with territorial coalitions, national policy arenas and transnational agendas. We therefore conceptualise *niche orchestration* as a specific governance mechanism whereby a central and resourceful actor coordinates an ecologies of intermediation to generate momentum for the niche. Orchestration is not a single act of management, but an iterative, multi-scalar process that unfolds over time through the strategic integration of multiple systemic intermediation functions. Such centralization and functional bundling are uncommon, as intermediation efforts in broader ecologies are usually spread across multiple actors. The Senegalese experience demonstrates both the potential and the risks of niche orchestration, highlighting how it can accelerate transitions while raising concerns of dependency and co-optation. Future research may test and refine this perspective using other study cases, including in Global North contexts and non-agricultural context.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), UPR HortSys, Montpellier 34398, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> HortSys, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research (ISRA), BAME, Dakar, Senegal</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> INRAE, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (UMR LISIS 1326 - CNRS, ESIEE, INRAE, UGE), Champs-sur-Marne, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR), United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL, Zollikofen 3052, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup> Institute of Biology, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>h</sup> University of Bern, Institute of Geography, Berne, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>i</sup> Enda Pronat, Dakar, Senegal</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: Cirad, 37 avenue Jean XXIII, Dakar-Etoile, Senegal.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: raphael.belmin@cirad.fr (R. Belmin).</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Agri-food systems in the Global South are facing unprecedented challenges in transitioning to sustainability. Pressures such as climate crises, land degradation and growing inequalities necessitate a profound and urgent shift in the way food is produced, traded and consumed (Altieri and Nicholls, 2012; Belmin et al., 2023; Côte et al., 2019; Moseley, 2024). In this context, a growing number of actors are exploring new practices and forms of organisation aimed at producing and consuming food differently, in ways that protect human and environmental health (FAO and INRAE, 2020; Loconto et al., 2016, 2018). Agroecology (FAO, 2018; Gliessman, 2018) has emerged as a unifying framework for grouping wide-ranging emerging initiatives, including alternative agri-food networks, new practices of research and development, or socio-political movements.

Agroecological initiatives worldwide tend to develop in socio-technical niches where a variety of pioneers - farmers, researchers, NGOs, farmers' associations, consumers, etc. - design, experiment and generalise practices and technologies in areas such as ecological intensification of farming systems, natural resource management and re-localisation of food chains (Darnhofer, 2015; Giagnocavo et al., 2022; Teschner and Orenstein, 2022). A socio-technical niche is defined as 'protected space' where emerging technologies and practices are developed and piloted, away from the pressures exerted by established markets, policies and prevailing regimes (Smith and Raven, 2012; Geels, 2004).

In spite of associated promises, niche initiatives remain marginal, while the awaited large-scale agroecological transition is still pending. This is partly due to structural entrenchment, which keeps the vast majority of farmers locked into the regime of conventional agriculture, its institutional framework and market logics (Lawhon and Murphy, 2012; Gaillard et al., 2025). In Africa, empowering agroecological niches is further complicated because local initiatives are often fragmented and remotely influenced from the outside (Bendjebbar and Fouilleux, 2022; Garrido-Garza et al., 2025; Ninnin, 2023). Agroecology is often backed by constellations of international actors who use development short-term projects as vehicles to import heterogeneous sets of techniques, values and visions of progress (Boillat et al., 2022). This is a common situation in the post-colonial context of Africa (Luna et al., 2021; Marfurt et al., 2023) where foreign development aid actors often turn to local NGOs to implement development projects and access local beneficiaries. We refer to this condition as *extraversion*, understood as the strong imprint of external aid and actors on public action and local initiatives (Bayart and Ellis, 2000; Rodriguez-Carmona, 2009). Due to multiple, coexisting donors and development projects, numerous local initiatives remain confined to uncoordinated experiments, dispersed across territories and often limited in space and time. This context may lead to situations where 'too many cooks spoil the broth', leading to poor aid coordination and effectiveness (Bourguignon and Platteau, 2015; Knack and Rahman, 2007; Lombart et al., 2014). Given the institutional arrangements supporting agroecological niches in Africa, the central challenge is to organize their emergence and development endogenously.

The Strategic Niche Management perspective has specified the processes by which a niche can form, develop and bring deep changes across places and scales (Schot et al., 1994; Kemp et al., 1998, 2001; Raven et al., 2010). In that perspective, a socio-technical niche gains momentum when dispersed and initially uncoordinated initiatives become the object of coordination mechanisms at a more collective ('cosmopolitan') level, enabling knowledge aggregation across projects and the alignment of actors around a shared transformative agenda (Geels and Deuten, 2006). Local initiatives have an inherently experimental and situated character; therefore, a key challenge is to 'move beyond experimentation' (Turnheim et al., 2018) by building momentum for more generic socio-technical, political and institutional change. In this regard, it is crucial to examine the embedding processes by which experimental initiatives (by definition limited in time and space) can contribute to more lasting and broader processes of systemic change (Turnheim et al., 2018).

The scaling from local experiments to broader niche development does not occur spontaneously but through dedicated work performed by specific actors. The literature on niche intermediation has made this purpossive work and its agents a central object of inquiry across diverse sectors such as energy, mobility, and food (Howells, 2006; Kanda et al., 2024; Kivimaa et al., 2019a; Sovacool et al., 2020). Intermediaries are said to engage in a variety of intermediation activities including connecting actors, facilitating collaboration, coordinating local project activities and providing necessary resources (Kivimaa et al., 2019a; Hargreaves et al., 2013). So, intermediation – though referring to a range of different activities – is fundamental to the process of niche formation, as it supports a shift from stand-alone experiments ('local phase'), through early experience-sharing ('inter-local phase'), and increasing aggregation of knowledge across initiatives ('trans-local phase'), to the consolidation of a mature niche that coordinates local projects and exerts strong influence on the regime ('global phase') (Geels and Deuten, 2006). In practice, niche development involves multiple intermediaries operating simultaneously, sometimes in tension with one another, creating complex *ecologies of intermediation* whose functioning can either foster or hinder transitions (Barrie and Kanda, 2020; Kanda et al., 2020; Kivimaa et al., 2019b). Recent studies in agriculture and agroecology have added to this body of work (Kilelu et al., 2011; Iyabano et al., 2022; Groot-Kormelinck et al., 2022; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al., 2024; Vilas-Boas et al., 2022), but only few have examined how multiple intermediaries can be aligned to generate systemic change (see Schiller et al., 2023 for a good example). This gap is particularly salient in Global South contexts, where transition processes are often shaped by fragmented project logics, donor agendas, and transnational interventions. In such externally-driven environments, building symbiotic ecologies of intermediation across scattered projects remains a formidable challenge (Hansen et al., 2018; Ghosh et al., 2021).

This paper contributes to the emerging debate on *ecologies of intermediation* by analysing how, under specific circumstances, orchestration can operate as a purposeful governance mechanism within such ecologies. In the global governance literature, orchestration is understood as an indirect and soft mode of governance used by international organisations in the management of global public goods and international crises (Chan et al., 2015). Orchestrators are portrayed as transnational actors who, lacking a firm foothold in local contexts, mobilise local actors across countries to promote targeted changes (Abbott et al., 2021; Abbott and Snidal, 2010). In this paper, we reverse the lens to explore how a 'grounded actor' can orchestrate an ecology of intermediation both within the niche and transnationally in order to achieve systems change at the national level? To tackle this question, we examine the recent
development of a Senegalese agroecological niche, where a local NGO has developed and assumed remarkable governance capacities. Between 2019 and 2025, the NGO became an active force in the co-construction of an advocacy coalition called DyTAES (a French acronym for ‘Dynamic for an agroecological transition in Senegal’), as institutionally stabilised vector for enhanced visibility and coordination of niche-actor activities.

Our contribution is threefold. First, we offer a rich, longitudinal account of an ecology of intermediation in agroecological transitions, situated in a Global South and transnational context. Second, we empirically show how a rooted NGO orchestrated fragmented activities across places and scales by mobilising an advocacy coalition as its vehicle. Finally, we introduce the concept of *niche orchestration* to capture a distinctive governance mechanism in which a niche-grounded actor coordinates an ecology of intermediation to build momentum for the niche. This governance mechanism has been critical for moving from fragmented local experiments toward the consolidation of a sociotechnical niche, thereby enriching debates on the governance of sustainability transitions in Global South contexts.

In what follows, we develop the *niche orchestration* concept by drawing on transitions studies and International Relations theory (Section 2). We then outline our methods in Senegal, combining surveys, participant observation, document analysis, and a multi-stakeholder workshop (Section 3). The results trace the emergence and development of an agroecological niche, highlighting how a locally rooted actor coordinated the network and influenced policies (Section 4). Finally, the discussion examines the specificities of niche governance through orchestration and its added value for research on intermediation (Section 5).

## 2. Orchestration as a mechanism of niche governance

### 2.1. Socio-technical niche emergence and development

In the literature on *Niche development* and *Strategic Niche Management*, breakthrough innovations such as agroecology are understood to emerge and develop in protected spaces called socio-technical niches (Smith and Raven, 2012). Niches are small-scale and relatively fragile socio-technical systems within which radical novelties incubate, relatively shielded from the selective pressures of established socio-technical regimes (Geels, 2004; Raven et al., 2008; Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Niches provide space, time and resources to design, test, develop and use new ways of doing things. Niche innovations may not be competitive at first, but are expected to scale up or scale out (Kemp et al., 1998) and eventually lead to large-scale socio-technical changes (Diaz et al., 2013; Ingram, 2015).

Shielding, nurturing and empowering have been proposed as essential mechanisms of niche development (Smith and Raven, 2012). Shielding refers to processes that protect a niche from the regulatory pressures of established regimes, for example through rule exemptions, special experimental conditions or isolation from markets (Raven et al., 2016). Such protection is necessary, since sub-optimal niche innovations need time and secure environment to develop into workable, valuable, legitimate and/or competitive propositions. Nurturing refers to processes that support the structuring and development of socio-technical niches, such as dedicated access to funding, infrastructure, networks or learning platforms. Small-scale transition experiments can contribute to nurturing processes, by providing novel socio-technical configuration where collective learning, vision alignment, and networking processes unfold (Berkhout et al., 2010; Geels and Raven, 2006; Kemp et al., 1998, 2001). Empowering refers to processes of niche-regime interaction, which may be confrontational, competitive, cooperative, cooptive, and so on (Kern et al., 2015).

### 2.2. Niche intermediation and intermediaries

Intermediary actors and intermediation functions play important roles in Sustainability Transitions in general, and in the development of niches in particular (Howells, 2006; Kivimaa et al., 2019a). Intermediaries occupy the interstices of socio-technical systems, where they connect, align, and translate between actors engaged in the production, use, and regulation of technologies and practices. Their specific function is to facilitate interaction and learning across boundaries, bridging diverse interests, circulating knowledge, and enabling coordination that supports innovation (Sovacool et al., 2020; Moss, 2009). They can, however, take on very different forms and functions depending on the context.

*Innovation intermediaries* operate mainly at the level of grassroots initiatives, with activities confined to specific projects or programmes, often donor- or state-funded. They facilitate transactions and information flows, typically in a bounded, bilateral and technical fashion, without significantly altering the wider system. Such intermediaries include innovation brokers that operate mainly within short-term projects (Howells, 2006; Batterink et al., 2010), donor-funded organisations with limited systemic reach (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009; Ramirez et al., 2018) and *ad hoc* brokers in smallholder systems (Kilelu et al., 2011; Iyabano et al., 2022). While indispensable for supporting day-to-day experimentation and knowledge exchange, their influence usually remains limited to an operational role (Kivimaa et al., 2019a). In our case study on agroecology in Senegal, since innovation intermediaries are often backed by externally funded projects, we will refer to them as ‘project-based intermediaries’.

By contrast, *systemic intermediaries* extend beyond single experiments to shape networks, institutions and policies, thereby influencing transition dynamics more broadly (Van Lente et al., 2003; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009; Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018). Systemic intermediaries act at *meso* level across multiple domains - technical, institutional, political, cultural - to stimulate processes of system change, especially during the acceleration phase of sustainability transitions (Kivimaa et al., 2019b). Their intermediation is strategic, long-term, multi-scalar, and oriented toward creating the enabling conditions for new socio-technical configurations to emerge and stabilise. Systemic intermediation functions encompass facilitating knowledge flows and co-production (Schiller et al., 2023), building coalitions and networks (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al., 2024), articulating collective visions (Hansen et al., 2018), and promoting institutionalisation and policy change (Kanda et al., 2020). Documented examples in agriculture include farmers'
organisations (Groot-Kormelinck et al., 2022; Iyabano et al., 2022), NGOs (Ramirez et al., 2018) and bridging agents linking different sectors or regimes (Manning and Roessler, 2014), which have all been shown to partially assume systemic roles.

## 2.3. Navigating fragmented ecologies

Yet such intermediaries seldom act alone. In most cases, they coexist with others, sometimes complementing, sometimes competing, producing complex ecologies of intermediation (Kivimaa et al., 2019a; Kanda et al., 2020). These ecologies are dynamic and evolving configurations, as actors enter, exit, and reshape their roles over time in response to shifting resources, agendas, and alliances (Kutter et al., 2023; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al., 2024). They bring together niche-level brokers, regime-level actors, boundary infrastructures connecting science, policy and practice, as well as donors and state agencies (Vilas-Boas et al., 2022). In the Global South, ecologies of intermediation are especially fragile, as they are shaped by intensified fragmentation dynamics driven by external projects, donor agendas, and transnational linkages (Hansen et al., 2018). These forces entrench intermediaries within asymmetric knowledge flows and enduring postcolonial hierarchies (Ghosh et al., 2021).

Despite important advances, three major gaps remain. First, we still know little about how symbiosis and cooperation can emerge from heterogeneous constellations of intermediaries, and under what conditions they contribute to or obstruct transitions. Second, because systemic intermediation functions are generally distributed across multiple actors, little is known about cases where one intermediary enacts several of these functions simultaneously and effectively becomes a central node within an ecology. Third, in post-colonial contexts of the Global South, there is limited understanding of how local systemic intermediaries can endogenise coordination functions and counterbalance the asymmetric power and knowledge flows that typically structure donor-driven transitions.

## 2.4. Orchestration as governance mechanism in ecologies of intermediation

To address these gaps, we draw on the concept of orchestration, which offers a lens to analyse how a central actor can foster cooperation and steer a broader ecology of intermediation towards accelerated transitions.

Within the literature on international relations and governance, orchestration has been defined as a soft and non-hierarchical form

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Niche orchestration is a mechanism of governance in which a single actor centralizes niche intermediation activities to accelerate the construction of the niche's protective space. Source: Authors.</figcaption></figure>
of governance in which a central, but non-coercive actor seeks to align diverse organisations and their activities around shared goals (Abbott et al., 2015, 2021; Abbott and Snidal, 2010). To do this, it engages various types of organisations (NGOs, national governments or private actors) with complementary expertise, resources and access to various parts of society. Orchestration contrasts with more traditional models of governance in which a central authority imposes strict rules, according to typically hierarchical and vertical logics. Coordination is achieved indirectly, through influence and encouragement, rather than through imposed directives or regulations. The orchestrator acts as a catalyst, providing resources and frameworks that enable actors to align their strategic goals, share knowledge and seize opportunities. To do this, an orchestrator mobilises funding, establishes collaborative platforms and shapes the norms, values and practices that guide the behaviour of network actors (Abbott et al., 2015; Abbott and Snidal, 2009).

Most of the orchestration literature focuses on international organisations - such as the United Nations or the World Bank - that mobilise national or local actors to advance global agendas (Bäckstrand et al., 2017; Biermann et al., 2009; Jessop, 1998; Pegram, 2015; Loconto and Fouilleux, 2014; Hale and Roger, 2014). In this paper, we reverse the lens and analyse how a locally rooted actor can orchestrate an ecology of intermediation at national level and transnationally to support processes of niche protected space building. In the Global South, where aid-dependent initiatives generate overlapping projects and competing framings, orchestration offers a lens to understand how coherence and collective action may nonetheless emerge. Orchestration in such settings involves developing specific capacities to align diverse intermediaries, build trust, pool resources, and manage conflict (Hölscher et al., 2018; Shi and Shen, 2021). This resonates with earlier accounts of systemic intermediaries (supra), but places stronger emphasis on the specific coordination process that arises when one intermediary temporarily centralises systemic functions within an ecology.

## 2.5. Conceptualizing niche orchestration

Extending previous research on orchestration in innovation networks (Batterink et al., 2010; Dhanarage and Parkhe, 2006; Lobo et al., 2024), we conceptualise *niche orchestration* as a specific governance mechanism whereby a central and resourceful actor co-ordinates an ecology of intermediation to generate momentum for the niche. Orchestration is not a one-off act of management, but an iterative, multi-scalar process that unfolds over time through the strategic bundling of multiple systemic intermediation functions. This perspective helps explain how, in contexts marked by multiple and often divergent forms of influence, dispersed initiatives may nonetheless coalesce into a cohesive, visible, and influential niche network.

In the rest of the paper, we use the term *orchestrated niche development* to describe situations where coordination is delegated to a single intermediary, who oversees functions that are usually distributed across multiple niche intermediaries. In niche orchestration, a constellation of international aid projects are partly channeled through a central actor, who strategically activates and reinforces the three core mechanisms of niche development: shielding, nurturing, and empowerment (Fig. 1, right). By contrast, we will use the term *uncoordinated niche development* to refer to a situation in which different actors pursue dispersed and disconnected intermediation activities. Under these conditions, local niche actors may not succeed in articulating their actions, aligning their agendas and drawing on a variety of experiences to generate wider systemic change (Fig. 1, left). The proposed niche development situations are to be seen as contrasting ideal-types, the features of which need to be traced empirically.

# 3. Methods

## 3.1. Case study

To illustrate how a niche can shift from a extraverted governance to orchestration from within, we looked at the history of Senegalese agroecology since the 1980s, focusing on the recent period (2019–2024) when the DyTAES coalition emerged and achieved significant institutional changes.

The Senegalese agroecological niche is composed of diverse actors, technologies, knowledge, values and beliefs engaged in producing, distributing and consuming food while restoring the natural and social balances of the rural world affected the multiple pressures (natural resources depletion, land pressure, demographics, etc....). From its early developments in the 1980s to the present, Senegalese agroecology has been pushed forward by a wide range of projects and programs supported by international aid and led by external actors. These actors have actively pursued alternative forms of agriculture, believing it to be a powerful lever for making agriculture and food systems more sustainable and resilient (FAO, 2018; IPES-Food, 2018). National inventory surveys conducted in 2020 (Grimaud, 2021) and 2022 (DyTAES, 2022) respectively identified 102 and 109 agroecological initiatives in Senegal led by NGOs, Farmer Unions, national and international research organisations, private companies and religious organisations.

However, the transition has been hampered by (i) productivity-oriented agricultural policies and agricultural market organisation that are unfavourable to agroecological practices; (ii) the limited capacity of local actors to work in synergy and by the unequal distribution of niche resources in favor of NGOs and research bodies, to the detriment of farmers' organisations (Bottazzi and Boillat, 2021a; Boillat et al., 2022). In 2019, under the impulsion of an NGO called Enda Pronat, niche actors have merged into an advocacy coalition called DyTAES, that promotes an agroecological transition at national scale. In just a few years, the action of DyTAES has helped to structure the policy dialogue between civil society and the State, contributing to early signs of the inclusion of agroecology into national and local public policies. It also allowed niche-actors to learn from each other, to articulate their visions, to mutualize resources and to collaborate at national and territorial levels around common action plans. We therefore focus on this turning point in the history of Senegalese agroecology, examining how an NGO was able to bring together niche actors and orchestrate actions that triggered empowerment processes.
## 3.2. Data collection

The majority of data were collected through participant observation within DyTAES meetings and activities. Extensive field notes were taken, internal communications and documents were gathered, and memo writing was used to capture insights and emerging theoretical propositions, following a grounded theory approach (Corbin, 2021; Mohajan and Mohajan, 2022). Participant observation was conducted by four authors at different stages and in different arenas of Senegal's agroecological movement - both national and local - complemented by periodic reflexive discussions among the authors between 2019 and 2025.

In 2019, we interviewed 20 organisations who promote agroecology in the regions of Dakar, Thiès and Diourbel, and who were part of the DyTAES network at its foundation. We asked respondents to identify organizations they work with including donors, organizations they support (resource flows), organizations with who they share knowledge (knowledge flows), organizations they are member (membership links) of and organizations they target in their advocacy actions (advocacy links). We used the results of these interviews to map the organisations involved in Senegalese agroecology (Table 1) and to trace the relationships between them according to their location (Fig. 2).

A key methodological milestone was a national workshop held in Dakar on 29 August 2024, jointly organised by CIRAD, ISRA, CGIAR and DyTAES as part of the One-CGIAR Agroecology Initiative. The event gathered 8 recognised experts including researchers, leaders of NGOs and farmer organisations, consumer advocates, and officials from the Ministry of Agriculture. The workshop combined collective timeline and actor mapping structured along four axes: science, practices, movements, external context. Participants co-produced a systemic and processual reading of the history of agroecology in Senegal, identifying main actors and major turning points. The outputs of the workshop were compiled in a report (Belmin et al., 2024a) and informed both the periodisation presented in the results section and the interpretation of coalition dynamics, thereby grounding the analysis in a broad, transdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder perspective.

## 3.3. Data analysis

We analysed the data according to 3 principles: (1) We assimilated all actors, rules and technologies related to Senegalese agroecology as components of a single socio-technical niche. From this perspective, the agroecological initiatives distributed across the territories are assimilated to individual transition experiments (Kemp et al., 1998; Turnheim et al., 2018), and the niche corresponds to a cosmopolitan level of aggregation where experiences, knowledge and networks of actors are integrated. (2) We interpreted the efforts of the NGO Enda Pronat to steer the DyTAES network as an attempt to move from an uncoordinated to orchestrated niche governance; (3) Eventually, we sought to understand the extent to which orchestration has stimulated the three key development processes of the Senegalese agroecological niche, namely shielding, nurturing and empowering.

Based on these initial precepts, we have constructed a historical timeline of Senegal's agroecological niche by (i) adopting a periodisation based on the consensus reached during the multi-stakeholder workshop, and guided by a 4-step niche development model, distinguishing local, inter-local, trans-local and global phases (Geels and Deuten, 2006); (ii) identifying, for each period, the various functions performed by intermediary actors.

## 3.4. Researchers positionality and reflexivity

The first and sixth authors were directly involved in DyTAES as members of its steering committee, which granted them privileged access to internal documents, meetings, and events. They took part in the coalition's everyday life by organising advocacy activities, drafting policy documents, and engaging in local transition experiments. The second and fifth authors contributed to the coordination of DyTAES' local branches from 2025 and 2023, respectively, while conducting research on agroecological transitions in Senegal since 2018. The last author has carried out intermittent participant observation of organic and agroecology movements across Africa and internationally since 2006, and in Senegal since 2015.

These insider positions inevitably raised questions about subjectivity, neutrality, and the tension between participation and

<caption>Table 1</caption>

Number of identified intermediary actors according to actor type in 2019. Source: 2019 survey conducted by authors.

<table><thead><tr><td>Types of actors</td><td>Number of identified actors</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Farmer Union</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Government</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>International NGO</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Local branch of international NGO</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>International organization</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>National NGO</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Platform</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Private company</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Research organization</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Religious organization</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>257</td></tr></tbody></table>
research. To mitigate this, we triangulated our observations with independent data sources, validated interpretations through collective workshops, and systematically integrated the viewpoints of actors not directly affiliated with DyTAES.

The consortium of authors spans diverse North–South positionalities, combining both external and internal institutional anchorages alongside varied sociocultural backgrounds. Regular collective reflections between 2019 and 2025 made these positional differences explicit and fostered a reflexive practice aimed at minimizing interpretive and epistemic bias in interpretation.

# 4. Results

## 4.1. Local phase (1980–2014) - emergence of an agroecological niche in Senegal

In the 1980s, a range of agroecological initiatives across Senegal led by intermediary actors such as NGOs, research centers, farmer organisations, individuals and religious communities emerged. They were seeking to challenge conventional agriculture, seen as responsible for land degradation (due to deforestation and excessive nitrogen fertilisation) and health issues (pesticide poisonings). They were also conceived as a response to state disengagement (structural adjustment plans), the post-drought period of the 1970s and 1980s, and the groundnut crisis, in an international context supporting the fight against desertification in Africa (Oxfam, 2020). The first agroecology initiatives proposed sustainable market gardening in irrigated areas, based on organic substitution for chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Projects to regenerate the land and the agroforestry layer in rain-fed farming areas then joined (Enda Pronat, 2010).

Enda Pronat is one of a handful of pioneering NGOs that initiated the first projects seeking for alternatives to conventional agriculture. The NGO was founded in 1982 following a critical study on the negative effects of the ‘green revolution’ on the environment and the health of rural populations (Germain and Thiam, 1983). Enda Pronat has been particularly active in rural areas of Senegal and has gradually gained national and international legitimacy (Enda Pronat, 2016; Bottazzi and Boillat, 2021a, 2021b).

From the mid-1990s, the concept of sustainable family farming began to take hold at both international and national levels, becoming the organising principle for development, research and advocacy activities. In this context, many new agroecological initiatives then joined this wave and benefited from financial and institutional support from organisations such as FAO (Oakland Institute & AFSA, 2018). Actors and projects clustered on the peripheral areas of the cities of Dakar and Thies, in an effort to secure agriculture in the face of threatening land and urban pressures. The growth of agroecology was also supported by the emergence of several small-scale organic certification schemes and the development of dedicated markets among expatriates and the country's emerging middle class (MISEREOR, 2018). This period was also marked by the rise of farmer movements, with farmers' organisations coming together in 1993 in an umbrella organisation (the Cadre National de Concertation des Ruraux, CNCR), and taking a stand in defence of family farming and the protection of land rights (Pesche, 2009).

During that period, agroecology was neither known nor recognised by the public authorities, and agricultural policy focused on the distribution of chemical inputs (pesticides and fertilisers). Senegal's agricultural policies have been mainly productivist, emphasising production and leading to dependence on foreign countries (Diop, 2016). Post-independence efforts to diversify and secure the food

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Cartography of relationships among intermediary actors within the Senegalese agroecological niche, according to their geographic location. The map reflects the configuration of the network in 2019, immediately following the emergence of DyTAES. Spot size is proportional to the number of connections with other organizations located in each region. Source: 2019 survey conducted by authors.</figcaption></figure>
supply did not deviate significantly from this path, even when environmental considerations began to surface in the 1990s. From 2000 onwards, we note a 'return of state interventionism' with programmes aimed at stimulating private investment in agriculture to promote rapid economic growth (Bottazzi et al., 2023; MAHRSA, 2006; MA, 2008; MAER, 2014). However, these efforts have often led to land grabbing and peasant protests, indicating a mismatch between political intentions and results (Brun, 2018; Koopman, 2012).

## 4.2. Inter-local phase (2014–2019) - early experience sharing between niche actors

In the mid-2010s, there was a wide variety of agroecological initiatives across Senegal (Table 1). Initiatives remained however uncoordinated because they were carried out by a constellation of intermediary actors working on different sites and whose actions were influenced by specifications driven by donors (Fig. 2 and Table 1). Agroecology actors in Senegal were working separately from each other, each with their own projects, donors and agenda. All agreed that more synergies and strong policy changes would be necessary to unlock an agroecological transition in Senegal (Touré & Sylla, 2019). Despite several attempts to coordinate their activities, niche actors couldn't join forces and come up with convincing policy messages. Based on the workshop participants, the difficulty in forming an alliance came from (i) the diversity and high number of organizations and professions working in agroecology, each being guided by different norms and beliefs; (ii) the geographical dispersion of the various interventions, leading to fragmented and uncoordinated small-scale transition experiments; (iii) lack of shared vision on the conceptual foundations of agroecology, with palpable tensions between conformists and transformists (i.e. agroecology as a set of cropping techniques vs agroecology as a new societal model) (Bottazzi and Boillat, 2021b); (iv) leadership competition between Farmers organisations and NGOs in a context of uneven empowerment (Boillat et al., 2022).

First networking attempts among Senegalese agroecology actors began after 2014, taking two main forms. The first was through the *Plateforme Nationale pour l'Agriculture Écologique et Biologique* (PNAEB), which was created in 2014 within a continental framework overseen by the African Union and encompassing nine African countries, including Senegal (Loconto et al., 2016). The PNAEB's mission was to integrate ecological and organic agriculture into national agricultural production systems, but it has struggled to gain momentum. That same year, the Task Force for Agroecology (TAFAé) was created on the initiative of the Institute for Development

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** The 15 major and cross-cutting challenges for the Senegalese agriculture as identified by the DyTAES alliance. Source: DyTAES (2020a).</figcaption></figure>
Research (IRD). This platform has served as a forum for exchange and networking, but it couldn't take a political turn because the TAFAé was supported by a foreign research institute and lacked local legitimacy (Ndiaye, 2024).

### 4.3. Trans-local phase (2019–2022) - the rise of a new agroecological coalition

#### 4.3.1. Networking of niche-actors in a coalition

In May 2019, the various organisations and platforms involved in agroecology in Senegal eventually formed an alliance - the DyTAES, a French acronym for "dynamic for an agroecological transition in Senegal" - with the aim of conducting a policy dialogue with the government for a better consideration of agroecology in public policies. This alliance was formed thanks to the impetus and leadership of the Senegalese NGO Enda Pronat, followed by a core group of influent NGOs, consumer associations and research organizations (Fig. 2) (DyTAES, 2020a).

According to the workshop participants, the convergence process was facilitated by changes in the national and international context at the turn of the 2020s, on which Enda Pronat could capitalise: (1) Senegal attracted international aid as the last bastion of political stability and the fight against the spread of insecurity and extremism in the Sahel; (2) Donors started promoting agroecology as a means of containing the flow of migrants and offsetting the effects of climate change; (3) President Macky Sall, then a candidate for re-election, explicitly referred to agroecology as a pillar of his future mandate (DyTAES, 2020a).

#### 4.3.2. The 2019 caravan as a catalyst

The first major action of DyTAES was to conduct a broad consultation of rural stakeholders, locally known as a "caravan" - so called because of its itinerant journey from one locality to another. From August to October 2019, Enda Pronat led a team of influential DyTAES members across Senegal's six eco-geographical zones - Casamance, Niayes, River Valley, Ferlo, Eastern Senegal and the Groundnut Basin (Cirad, 2021c). In each region, the delegation mobilised local project networks to carry out field visits, focus group discussions, and participatory workshops aimed at (i) capturing the main challenges and difficulties faced by Senegalese farmers; (ii) identifying and documenting grassroots agroecological initiatives; and (iii) collecting policy recommendations from communities.

The results of the caravan were compiled in a report (DyTAES, 2020a) which was symbolically presented to the Government of Senegal in February 2020, during the 'Agroecology Days', an international event organized by DyTAES (DyTAES, 2020b). This report identified fifteen major and cross-cutting challenges for the Senegalese agriculture (Fig. 3), as well as forty-two long term and three short term policy recommendations. The DyTAES report has become the common technical, political and ideological bedrock on which DyTAES members have aligned their visions and from which the national political dialogue was built.

#### 4.3.3. Bypassing divisions by avoiding definitions

The relative consensus over the overall visions and expectations was also the result of boundary management - the strategic work of maintaining a balance between inclusion and exclusion within the coalition. At the time of setting up the alliance and writing the seminal report, it was chosen not to define "agroecology" because this concept consisted of a wide range of interpretations among DyTAES members. Imposing a rigid definition of agroecology would therefore have led to division and discord. Instead, they adopted the 10 Elements of Agroecology (FAO, 2018), an international framework carried by the FAO, which Enda Pronat had contributed to create during a consultation conducted in 2015. The FAO definition had the advantage of being apolitical, authoritative and particularly flexible - it is made up of a set of interpretable criteria that can be ticked or not. Hence, DyTAES members deliberately kept the framing of agroecology open in order to attract a variety of actors and initiatives involved in different forms of agroecology (traditional agriculture, innovations developed in research projects, technical packages proposed by NGOs).

Symmetrically, they drew ideological red lines by excluding actors such as agro-industrial farms. This exclusion stems from the family farming ideology that dominates among DyTAES actors - a legacy of the peasant movements of the 1990s - which framed agroecology as inseparable from smallholder agriculture, food sovereignty, and resistance to industrial models.

#### 4.3.4. An 'unformal' agroecological alliance

After the 2020 'Agroecology days', the DyTAES coalition formalised itself and experienced a gradual rise in influence, visibility and organizational capacities, leading to increased connectiveness of the niche network and aggregation of knowledge across initiatives. The coalition was formalised through the establishment of internal governance bodies: the General Assembly (representatives of the member organizations, who establish the long-term vision and the charter of commitment), the Steering Committee (about 20 leaders of organizations in charge of strategic decisions and monitoring and evaluation), the Technical Committee (development officers, researchers and communication officers from about 10 organizations, in charge of implementing the DyTAES action plan and taking operational decisions). The General Secretariat of DyTAES was entrusted to Enda Pronat, in recognition of its leadership in the coalition's formation and its unique legitimacy, resources, and institutional capacity to sustain the dynamic. Members formalized their commitment through a charter that advocates principles of horizontal relations, autonomous action and free expression, and defines the mission of DyTAES as "to promote the agroecological transition in Senegal through advocacy, awareness-raising, experience sharing and support for territories in transition" (DyTAES, 2020c).

According to workshop participants, DyTAES members chose not to create a legal structure (for instance via a formal association) in order to avoid (1) certain actors to rely on their position in DyTAES to become more visible and influential; (2) DyTAES to compete with its member organizations for access to financial resources from donors. Instead, the coalition has always remained unformal and non-hierarchical.
### 4.3.5. A transition agenda for Senegal

The coalition articulated its common action plan around four streams of activity, steered by Enda Pronat and operationalised through the collective framework and governance mechanisms of DyTAES:

(i) **National policy dialogue.** DyTAES has become a privileged interlocutor of the Senegalese Ministry of Agriculture, several parliamentary groups and some Mayors. DyTAES participated in the elaboration of new legal frameworks such as the Green PES (Green Emerging Senegal Plan) (DyTAES, 2021e) and the revision of the LOASP (Loi d'Orientation Agro-Sylvo-Pastorale et halieutique), which are central public policy framework for 2022-2035. The policy dialogue has led to concrete advances such as: (i) the creation of an agroecology focal point at the Ministry of Agriculture (Bottazzi et al., 2024); (ii) the inclusion of agroecology in the Green PES (MEDD, 2021); (iii) the introduction in 2021 of a subsidy on organic fertilisers (Lequotidien, 2021); (iv) the creation of a group of international donors supporting agroecology.

(ii) **International fora,** including political or scientific events in which DyTAES participated as a contributor or co-organiser. These numerous representations have enabled DyTAES to reach out internationally in order to gain visibility and political influence at national level (Divecosys, 2021; DyTAES, 2021a; Enda Tiers-Monde, 2022; DyTAES, 2022c).

(iii) **Supporting territorial coalitions.** Meanwhile, DyTAES started to encourage the construction of local sub-coalitions called DyTAEL (French acronym for 'Dynamics for a Local Agroecological Transition') in several departments of Senegal. The DyTAELs are local coalitions for policy dialogue, territorial planning, experimentation and synergy between the grassroots initiatives present in a territory. In a context where deep political reforms are slow to take place, DyTAELs were designed to demonstrate that accelerated change is possible at the scale of pilot territories (Mbodj & Ndoye, 2024). The DyTAELs were also intended to produce evidences and lessons likely to feed the national political dialogue led by the national DyTAES (DyTAES, 2021b,c,d; FONGS, 2021). Initiated in 2021 by Enda Pronat and rapidly replicated, the territorialisation of the coalition prompted co-lead organisations within the national DyTAES network to assume the role of sub-orchestrators, each anchoring its influence in a specific territory (Table 3).

(iv) **Awareness-raising activities on agroecology.** The DyTAES communication unit has been working to make the actions of DyTAES and its members visible through public events and various media (Facebook, Twitter, website, quarterly newsletter, TV programmes). In particular, DyTAES highlighted success stories and local champions through its communication, giving some elected representatives and project beneficiaries strong and regular exposure at its events. It should be noted that some of the DyTAES lead organizations made an active use of art and creative communication tools such as music, photography and videos, in order to develop narrative discourses around DyTAES and Senegalese agroecology (Belmin & Thouvenot, 2025; Bottazzi et al., 2026; ARTS, 2025; DyTAES 2021a).

### 4.3.6. A process of resource mutualisation

The DyTAES action plan was financed through the combined contributions of its member organizations, with Enda Pronat providing a particularly significant share (Table 2). Funding was mobilised in two stages: initially by reallocating budget lines from ongoing projects, and subsequently by developing new projects explicitly dedicated to the coalition's activities.

The mutualisation process also involved human resources and skills. While each actor continued to pursue its own agenda, it framed its advocacy efforts as part of DyTAES action plan. In most member organisations, staff were assigned to support DyTAES governance and the implementation of its action plan, with their involvement culminating in major events such as caravans and Agroecology Days. Importantly, Enda Pronat has called on a core group of intermediary organisations or persons to proactively co-lead the coalition: (i) A handful of influential civil society leaders served as visible representatives of the movement and articulated its voice in the public sphere; (ii) Transnational research organisations such as CIRAD played a pivotal role in prompting the construction of transnational alliances and large-scale projects supporting DyTAES and its local declinations. CIRAD also emerged as the second main financial contributor to the coalition, after Enda Pronat; and (iii) quasi-state actors such as the Senegalese Research Institute on Agriculture (ISRA), who served as a bridge between DyTAES and the Senegalese government, bringing credibility to the coalition in the eyes of public authorities.

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Pooling of financial resources by niche actors for national events organised by Enda Pronat through DyTAES. The table does not include the funds allocated to DyTAES' routine operational activities, outside of specific events, nor to the functioning of the departmental DyTAELs. Source: Authors.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Agroecology Days 2020</th><th>Caravan 2022</th><th>Agroecology Days 2023</th><th>Anniversary + General Assembly</th><th>Caravan 2025</th><th>TOTAL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of organisations co-financing</td><td>13</td><td>19</td><td>23</td><td>12</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution of Enda Pronat</td><td>49 %</td><td>39 %</td><td>20 %</td><td>44 %</td><td>43 %</td><td>37 %</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution of other organisations</td><td>51 %</td><td>61 %</td><td>80 %</td><td>56 %</td><td>57 %</td><td>63 %</td></tr><tr><td>Total cost (CFA)</td><td>54 411 400</td><td>51 073 141</td><td>87 978 892</td><td>33 208 000</td><td>74 832 570</td><td>298 749 003</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** A multi-level periodisation showing the progress of the Senegalese agroecological niche in terms of internal structuring, relations with national policies and the dynamics of international aid, and the pivotal role played by DyTAES and DyTAEL. Source: Authors.</figcaption></figure>
<caption>Table 3</caption>

Key information on the 12 DyTAELS. These are semi-autonomous coalitions that perform intermediation functions similar to DyTAES (see right-hand columns of the table), while being rooted in specific departmental transition issues. Each operates by mobilizing distinct bundles of projects and relies on different supporting organizations acting as secondary orchestrators. However, their levels of maturity and autonomy remain uneven across departments. Source: Authors.

<table><thead><tr><th>DyTAES / DyTAEL</th><th>Number of member organisations</th><th>Process start date</th><th>Sub-orchestrator</th><th>Lead local intermediaries</th><th>Backing projects</th><th>Transition issues as formulated by DyTEL actors</th><th>Networking</th><th>Stabilization</th><th>Visioning</th><th>Strategic planning</th><th>Policy dialogue</th><th>Resource pooling</th><th>Building evidence</th><th>Capitalization</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tamba</td><td>41</td><td>2021</td><td>Enda Pronat / ISRA / CIRAD</td><td>Am Be Koun-Solidarité</td><td>Fair Sahel, PMA, projet ULB, SAD</td><td>Deforestation, soil impoverishment and poor access to water and mining</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Podor</td><td>65</td><td>2021</td><td>Enda Pronat / Union de Galoya / USE-PIP</td><td>UJAK</td><td>PMA, AACID, JAFOWA</td><td>Land degradation, land and water governance, and agroecological and energy transition in irrigated areas</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fatick</td><td>64</td><td>2022</td><td>CIRAD / AgriSud International</td><td>Jam Bugum</td><td>PRPA, IAE, MAHDIA</td><td>General degradation of natural resources</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Bignona</td><td>85</td><td>2022</td><td>CNCR / IPAR / ENDA-PRONAT / FONGS / UNIBE / CREATES</td><td>Eco from Africa</td><td>ARTS, TAPSA, PETTAL, Projet Beye Diiwaan Yi</td><td>Bush fires, illegal logging in forests and mangroves</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Thiès</td><td>23</td><td>2023</td><td>ECLOSIO / FONGS</td><td>3AP, Yessal Agri Hub</td><td>SAD, KCOA</td><td>Land pressure, access to water, dependence on inputs; sustainable market gardening and rain-fed agriculture</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Mboro</td><td>18</td><td>2021</td><td>Enda Pronat / ISRA / CIRAD</td><td>Plateforme locale de l'eau</td><td>Fair Sahel</td><td>Pressure and insecurity of land tenure, risks related to pesticides and chemical fertilisers.</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Foundiougne</td><td>40</td><td>2023</td><td>CNCR / ECLOSIO / AgriSud / AJE</td><td>CORDID</td><td>Mbaye Mussel</td><td>Control of productive water, adaptation to manifestations of climate change (salinisation, etc.), land use planning, forest management, mangroves and fisheries, and eco-tourism</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kaolack</td><td>25</td><td>2022</td><td>CARITAS</td><td>Symbiose / GDSP</td><td>NA</td><td>Access to water, salinisation of land, waste management, governance of forest resources</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mbour</td><td>47</td><td>2024</td><td>IPAR / UNIBE / Enda Pronat / ULB / CREATES</td><td>ONG APAF</td><td>ARTS, PMA, Projet Beye Diiwaan Yi</td><td>Access to land and productive resources, agriculture-livestock farming tensions, sustainable fishing and coastal protection.</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vélingara</td><td>36</td><td>2024</td><td>AVSF / ANCAR</td><td>ASPSP</td><td>Thielal</td><td>Cotton production and livestock farming area with heavy use of medicines and pesticides</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Linguère</td><td>47</td><td>2024</td><td>Enda Pronat / AVSF</td><td>ADID / CVCS Dahra</td><td>PMA</td><td>Land issues, disruption of the balance of sylvopastoral systems, livestock farmer-farmer conflicts</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oussouye</td><td>56</td><td>2025</td><td>CIRAD / UASZ / INRAE</td><td>AMP Ufoyaal Kassa Bandial</td><td>ACROPICS, ASA FSRP, PRATA, Safoods, FEF DyTAES</td><td>Destabilising pressures on the tangible and intangible agroecological heritage of the territory</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4.4. Global phase (2022–2025) - increasing structuring and policy influence of the coalition

### 4.4.1. Expansion of the agroecology coalition

Between 2022 and 2025, the Senegalese agroecology coalition continued to expand, structure and gain political influence at the national and international level (Fig. 4). The number of DyTAES members increased from 65 to 92, while the number of DyTAELS increased from 3 to 12, totalling 547 organisations throughout the country (Table 3).

These advances largely reflect DyTAES fieldwork, which relaunched cycles of consultation and political dialogue, marked by caravans in 2022 and 2025 (see next sections). According to workshop participants, they were also made possible by increasing international aid allocated to agroecology, its actors and coalitions, in a context where (i) DyTAES and DyTAEL attracted donors by bringing increasing visibility and legitimacy to Senegalese agroecology; (ii) Through their respective action plans, DyTAES and DyTAEL offered coherent frameworks of action into which donors could integrate their resources (BAME, 2021; Belmin et al., 2024b; Bottazzi et al., 2024); (iii) Senegal has become a refuge country for Western development aid, in an increasingly unstable Sahel.

### 4.4.2. On the road again

In 2022, DyTAES launched a new consultation caravan aimed at initiating a renewed cycle of political dialogue (Belmin and Camara, 2022). From its position as Secretariat, Enda Pronat enlisted key coalition and sub-coalition actors to mobilise their networks

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Bundled intermediation functions performed by Enda Pronat through DyTAES, in light of the literature.

<table><thead><tr><td>Intermediation function</td><td>Empirical observation</td><td>Scholar perspectives on niches and orchestration</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Networking</td><td>Niche actors met periodically within the DyTAES' strategic and operational governance Committees as well as at major events such as Caravans and Policy events.</td><td>Networking is a known orchestration function (Hale and Roger, 2014) which contributes to the maturation of socio-technical niches, insofar as it facilitates the coordination of actors, collective learning and the sharing of resources (Geels, 2004; Smith et al., 2005).</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic planning</td><td>The DyTAES action plans included policy dialogue, international projection, supporting territorial transition experiments, and awareness-raising activities.</td><td>Developing a shared transformative agenda is a classical orchestration activity (Abbott et al., 2015) which can strengthen the ability of niche actors to coordinate their efforts to influence existing socio-technical systems (Raven et al., 2010).</td></tr><tr><td>Building shared standards, values and visions</td><td>Heterogeneous actors were aligned through DyTAES around: (i) fifteen cross-cutting challenges serving as a long-term vision for the future; (ii) engagement charters that set out the vision, mission, and operations of national and local coalitions; and (iii) a consensus to avoid defining agroecology and bypass disagreement.</td><td>Shared norms and values guide the design and evaluation of niche innovations, while anchoring them in long-term visions (Smith and Raven, 2012). Such alignment processes often involve leaving strategic grey areas that allow actors to hold together despite considerable dissensus (Gamson, 1992; Lamine et al., 2021). Similarly, orchestrators have relied on standardisation processes to ensure cohesion and collective action within their network (Eberlein et al., 2014).</td></tr><tr><td>Pooling resources and skills</td><td>The DyTAES action plan was implemented through the mutualisation of financial and human resources mobilised by member organisations allocating project budgets, assigning staff to governance and advocacy tasks, and coalescing around flagship events.</td><td>In niches, the pooling of resources and skills enables actors to overcome their individual obstacles, gain influence and make innovations more robust and mature (Kemp et al., 1998; Smith and Raven, 2012). In orchestration, it allows a central entity to facilitate efforts towards alignment and knowledge sharing (Abbott et al., 2015).</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge capitalisation</td><td>During the three caravans, lessons and insights from agroecological initiatives were compiled in capitalization documents (DyTAES, 2023e) and highlighted at national events such as Agroecology Days.</td><td>Collective learning is key process in the maturation and empowerment of niches (van Poeck and Ostman, 2021; Seyfang and Longhurst, 2016). Within orchestrated networks, capitalising on experiences enables the dissemination of good practices, the strengthening of individual and collective capacities, and the diffusion of innovations (Hale and Roger, 2014).</td></tr><tr><td>Building evidence and credibility</td><td>DyTAES functioned as a platform to showcase success stories and local champions through policy dialogue and social media, strategically building a repertoire of evidence to construct the credibility of Senegalese agroecology in governmental arenas.</td><td>In orchestration, central entities seek to legitimate their initiatives by partnering with influential champions (Abbott et al., 2015). Building a repertoire of evidence and success stories is also a strategic activity in niche development, to legitimise innovations and mobilise wider support (Hargreaves et al., 2013).</td></tr><tr><td>International projection</td><td>By engaging in international networks and events, DyTAES gained visibility and legitimacy, enhancing its capacity to mobilise support and exert influence at national level.</td><td>Orchestrated networks seek to increase their international legitimacy: (i) to become credible in the eyes of governments, NGOs, businesses and the general public, (ii) to attract funding, investment and immaterial support, and (iii) to exert indirect pressure on governments (Bernstein and Cashore, 2007; Hale and Roger, 2014). In sustainability transitions, such a process can lead to niche-friendly policy change (Geels and Schot, 2007).</td></tr><tr><td>Policy dialogue</td><td>Based on extensive consultation, DyTAES built advocacy documents as a basis for dialogue with policy makers and financial institutions.</td><td>Past studies have shown several examples of orchestrating bodies active in advocacy (Pegram, 2015). Dialogue with decision-makers is central to niche management, as it both facilitates access to institutional resources and aligns innovations with governmental priorities (Kemp et al., 1998; Rotmans et al., 2001).</td></tr></tbody></table>
and resources, leading a 14-stage journey across Senegal's six eco-geographical zones between 7 February and 15 March 2022. This nationwide process contributed to: (1) symbolically deliver the 2020 report to local authorities and civil society representatives across the various territories of Senegal. This was a way for DyTAES to be accountable to the people consulted in 2019; (2) Impulse new DyTAELS, strengthen and link the existing ones, and capitalize on their activities; (3) Consult rural people to feed into the Green PES with new operational measures stemming from the grassroots actors; (4) Gather stakeholders' views on the organic fertiliser subsidy policy; (5) Raise awareness of communities on agroecology; (6) Compile a comprehensive repertoire of the country's agroecological initiatives and integrate them into capitalization documents (DyTAES, 2023e).

In June 2022, at the end of the caravan, a national workshop was organised in Dakar to give back and consolidate the results of the caravan (DyTAES, 2022a; DyTAES, 2022b). In February 2023, DyTAES organised the 4th edition of the Agroecology Days with the aim of giving back the results of this consultation to the general public and decision-makers through 4 policy briefs (DyTAES, 2023a-d), and opening a new cycle of policy dialogue. This new edition of the Agroecology Days was partly decentralised in order to highlight the DyTAELS as major actors of the agroecological transition.

### 4.4.3. Increasing penetration of agroecology into national policies

During the opening conference of the 2022 Agroecology Days, the Senegalese Minister of Agriculture announced that the subsidy for organic fertilisers would be increased from 10 to 20 % of the total amount spent on fertilisers. As in 2020, this change was officially attributed to the political dialogue with DyTAES. But it was also encouraged by international tensions over raw materials in a context marked by the covid and the Russia-Ukraine war (Hautebois, 2023).

Following the 2023 Agroecology Days, the Senegalese government mobilised DyTAES as a stakeholder to participate in the development of three key strategies for the future of the country's agricultural sector: (i) in 2023, the creation of the Green Emerging Senegal Plan, an environmental variant of the Emerging Senegal Plan, a national development strategy aimed at making Senegal an emerging country by 2035; (ii) in 2024-2025, the revision of the Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral and Fisheries Orientation Act, a law created in 2004, which is the basis for the development and implementation of operational programmes in the aforementioned sub-sectors. (iii) Since 2023, the Ministry of Agriculture has relied on DyTAES and its DyTAELS to identify beneficiaries of the national organic input programme. This new role has strengthened the coalition's local influence but also sparked debate within DyTAES, as some members warn of potential risks of cooptation and institutional dependence.

It should also be noted that in 2024, following the election of opposition president Bassirou Diomaye Faye and the coming to power of a new government, some committed members of Enda Pronat were placed at the head of Secretary of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, as well as two major state agricultural development and extension organisations. It can be assumed that their expertise and legitimacy acquired within DyTAES, served as a springboard. However, it is still difficult to fully assess the extent and impact of these very recent changes.

A decisive step was reached in 2025 with the organisation of a third national caravan, this time co-organised by DyTAES and the Ministry of Agriculture. This unprecedented co-leadership marked a new stage in the of agroecology in Senegal. No longer merely a pressure group, DyTAES became a policy instrument on which the State itself relied to implement its agenda. The 2025 caravan aimed at co-constructing a forthcoming National Strategy for Agroecology and Organic Farming. Over a period of several weeks, the caravan travelled through 23 stages across all regions, engaging more than 1700 community actors and 752 organisations to gather orientations and recommendations. This exercise not only deepened the penetration of agroecology into territories but also triggered the establishment of several new DyTAELS.

## 5. Discussion

### 5.1. From fragmented intermediation to orchestrated governance

Agroecological transitions in the Global South often unfold within fragmented ecologies of intermediation, shaped by project-

<table><caption>**Table 5**

Comparing the status of the Senegalese agroecological niche under uncoordinated vs orchestrated governance.</caption><thead><tr><td>Niche development processes</td><td>Uncoordinated niche governance (before 2019)</td><td>Orchestrated niche governance (in 2025)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Shielding</td><td><ul><li>The niche is shielded by distributed, uncoordinated flow of external economic resources.</li><li>Short-term projects support multitude of isolated socio-technical experiment.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>The DyTAES' normative power (a set of shared narratives, values and action plans) frames donors actions.</li><li>Increased interest of donors in Senegalese agroecology.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Nurturing</td><td><ul><li>By accepting donors' resources, niche actors must integrate exogenous and heterogeneous knowledge, values and norms.</li><li>Top-down knowledge flows, low capacity for coordination and knowledge capitalization.</li><li>The dominant niche actors (NGOs and international research centers) concentrate resources.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Niche actors are united around a shared transition agenda.</li><li>DyTAES is amplifying local agroecological initiatives by capitalizing and disseminating their experiences nationally.</li><li>Resources are periodically pooled for collective activities such as caravans.</li><li>Knowledge circulates across local, territorial, and national levels, enabling diverse actors to converge around unifying narratives.</li><li>DyTAES has become a legitimate and credible interlocutor in regular dialogue with the political and financial components of the regime</li><li>Existing policies and donor rules more supportive of agroecology.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Empowering</td><td><ul><li>Niche actors engage in occasional bilateral dialogue with government and donors.</li></ul></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Intermediation functions and related protective space building processes in orchestrated niche. Source: Authors.</figcaption></figure>

driven dynamics, donor dependence and transnational interventions (Hansen et al., 2018; Ghosh et al., 2021). In Africa, proliferation of overlapping and misaligned projects has led to duplication and weak coordination, making it difficult to aggregate dispersed experiences and learnings in ways that could strengthen their influence on agricultural policies (Boillat et al., 2022; Bourguignon and Platteau, 2015; Knack and Rahman, 2007; Lombart et al., 2014).

Against this backdrop, Senegal offers a distinctive experience: a locally rooted NGO has orchestrated a broad coalition, assumed coordination functions, and provided a strategic framework to channel donor resources. With the creation and rise of DyTAES, an initially disparate set of marginal and uncoordinated actors evolved into a cohesive, multi-scaled coalition capable of shaping official discourse and aligning major projects around shared national and local agendas. This suggests that actors in the Global South may seek to decolonise prevailing logics of extraversion by asserting their own agency and strategically seeking to repurpose elements of external agendas to support more endogenous pathways of development (Iyabano et al., 2022; Groot-Kormelinck et al., 2022; Schiller et al., 2023).

From a Sustainability Transitions perspective, our case provides a longitudinal account of a changing ecology of intermediation, tracing the emergence of early socio-technical experiments, the role of project-based intermediaries, and their progressive networking and alignment culminating in the strengthening and structuration of an agroecological niche. Within this niche, a grounded intermediary emerged as a central orchestrator, aligning fragmented activities across places and scales, by bundling eight systemic intermediation functions: networking, strategic planning, developing shared standards and visions, pooling resources and skills, capitalising knowledge, building international legitimacy, creating evidence and visibility, and engaging in policy dialogue (Table 4).

Such integration and functional bundling are relatively uncommon and stand out in contexts where intermediation efforts within broader ecologies of intermediation are typically distributed among multiple actors (Kivimaa et al., 2019b; Kanda et al., 2020; Sovacool et al., 2020). Our study contributes to an emerging body of work in Sustainability Transitions, highlighting the importance of systemic and pivotal intermediaries that orchestrate transformation processes at the meso level (Batterink et al., 2010; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al., 2024; Kutter et al., 2023).

Comparing the status of the Senegalese agroecological niche before 2019 and in 2025, Table 5 shows that the shift from uncoordinated to orchestrated governance stimulated accelerated niche development, reconfiguring mechanisms of shielding, nurturing, and empowering (Smith and Raven, 2012; Geels and Raven, 2006; Kemp et al., 1998).

## 5.2. The choreography of niche orchestration

In the previous sections, niche orchestration was introduced and empirically demonstrated as a governance mechanism through which a central and resourceful actor coordinates an ecology of intermediation to generate momentum for the niche.
The following discussion deepens this concept by asking *how* a single conductor can foster cooperation within a particularly fragmented and extraverted ecology, typical of the African agri-food sector. The Senegalese case offers fertile ground to explore this question, revealing orchestration as a continuous governance process through which a central conductor mobilises a coalition to set networks in motion, sustain cyclical and rhythmic patterns of collective action, and operate across scales. We extend this idea through a musical analogy, showing how orchestration transforms an initial cacophony into a *choreography of intermediaries* (Kutter et al., 2023), where the conductor harmonises movements through time, producing alternative phases of convergence and dispersion that sustain the momentum of transition.

### 5.2.1. The coalition as orchestra

The first and seminal action of Enda Pronat was to build the DyTAES, establish its operating rules, and use it as a vehicle for orchestrating the niche. The NGO acted as a conductor, guiding the coalition - the orchestra - to perform a harmonised score of collective actions enacted by the network itself. In this sense, the orchestrator was not a one-man band carrying out every task alone, but a conductor of collective agency, focused on 'governing through and in networks' (Klijn and Edelenbos, 2007), by synergising the specific resources and capabilities of niche actors.

### 5.2.2. Cyclicity of orchestration

In Senegal, a key specificity of niche orchestration was its cyclical dynamic: successive phases of protection, nurturing, and empowerment reinforced one another, allowing the agroecology niche to gradually gain coherence and momentum over time. In each round, the orchestrator mobilised and pooled the financial resources of the niche (*shielding*) to organise a caravan that federated the actors, stimulated collective learnings and shared vision (*nurturing*). The caravane outputs were used to deliver political proposals that served as a basis for regular dialogue with the authorities and led to successive reforms in support of agroecology. The process increased the visibility, legitimacy and confidence of the niche actors, which in turn strengthened the leadership of the conductor and attracted the favour of donors (*empowering*). Eventually, at the first signs of weakening, the orchestrator launched a new mobilisation caravan to revive the collective momentum and open up a new cycle of political dialogue.

To our knowledge, this is one of the first empirical demonstrations of cyclical sequences of systemic intermediation in sustainability transitions. These cycles of orchestration are not isolated but embedded within the broader phasing of niche development (Geels and Deuten, 2006) and the evolving constellation of intermediation activities (Fig. 5). Consistent with prior studies (Kivimaa et al., 2019a, 2019b; Kanda et al., 2020), we observed intermediary roles shifting from creating protected spaces for experimentation in the emergence phase to coordinating scaling and negotiating rules during acceleration.

### 5.2.3. Rhythmicity of orchestration

In Senegal, orchestration took the form of a rhythmic phenomenon, in which periodic events punctuated collective action and reinforced the niche's momentum. The three caravans marked pivotal junctures, serving as hinges between cycles by coupling the restitution of past outcomes with broad consultations to set new collective priorities. Beyond their procedural function, the caravans embodied the coalition in practice: they facilitated the penetration of the network into rural territories, stimulated the formation of local coalitions, and provided critical tests of the coalition's internal capacity for coordination and resource mutualisation. They also marked moments of peak visibility, mobilizing actors across levels from grassroots initiatives and project-based intermediaries to national or- chestrators and funders. Site visits, in particular, generated collective repertoires of evidence and highlighted exemplary "local heroes," thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of the niche. In this sense, the caravans exemplify how niche orchestration can move beyond the conventional modalities of network governance - limited to workshops and written exchanges - towards embodied and field-based.

Building on this analysis, we argue that the caravans acted as 'temporal anchors' in the orchestration process, punctuating and stabilizing successive cycles while sustaining momentum across phases. Previous research has emphasized the importance of phasing and sequencing in sustainability transitions (Geels and Deuten, 2006; Kivimaa et al., 2019b), but it has paid little attention to how concrete events can punctuate these phases and provide rhythm to the process.

### 5.2.4. Multi-scalarity of orchestration

A key feature of the orchestration process observed in Senegal lies in its multi-scalar configuration. While existing research often conceptualizes systemic intermediation as operating primarily at one level - whether locally embedded (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009; Ramirez et al., 2018) or globally oriented (Hansen et al., 2018) - our case illustrates how niche orchestration can span multiple levels simultaneously. DyTAES emerged as a structured, multi-level network connecting dispersed local experiments with territorial and national policy debates and transnational funding agendas. In doing so, orchestration facilitated both the aggregation of knowledge across projects and the alignment of actions towards a shared transformative agenda. Moreover, the piloting NGO has actively mobilised the national and international agenda to open windows opportunities (Geels and Schot, 2007; Yap and Truffer, 2019) for policy dialogue (Fig. 4, upper part).

This result advances the niche development literature by showing that intermediary actors help build protective spaces through the organization of knowledge and resource flows linking (i) locally embedded networks of small-scale experimentation with (ii) broader networks that interpret grassroots lessons and construct shared narratives (Smith and Raven, 2012; Geels and Deuten, 2006; Geels and Raven, 2006). Such multi-level orchestration is particularly crucial in Global South contexts, where project-based logic and asym- metrical transnational dynamics require mechanisms that bridge local experimentation with national and international arenas (Iyabano et al., 2022).
### 5.3. Contingencies and limitations of the orchestration process

The success of the Senegalese agroecological coalition has sparked interest in whether such a process could be replicated elsewhere. Several conditions seem to have enabled the “DyTAES moment”. A capable orchestrator was crucial: Enda Pronat, a legitimate and ideologically independent NGO with strong organizational capacity, steered the process. Substantial financial investment ensured continuity and visibility (Table 2). The orchestrator was also backed by committed supporting organizations that contributed resources and expertise. Finally, DyTAES emerged at a moment of niche maturity, when a dense network of interconnected actors was already in place and ready to be mobilized.

While orchestration enabled acceleration, it might also create risks of over-dependence. Several scholars caution that concentrating multiple intermediation functions in a single organisation risks creating fragility, dependency, and legitimacy challenges, as well as suppressing diversity within transition processes (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009). A further limitation is the risk of co-optation: The co-organisation of the 2025 caravan by DyTAES and the Ministry of Agriculture illustrates both recognition and potential capture. On the one hand, it demonstrates that DyTAES has moved from being a pressure group to becoming a legitimate partner in policy-making. On the other hand, it raises questions about whether the coalition risks being instrumentalised to legitimise governmental agendas. Similarly, the growing reliance of the State on DyTAELS to identify beneficiaries of the national programme for organic input distribution reinforces the coalition’s role, but also exposes it to pressures and compromises. In both cases, the boundary between civil society autonomy and state delegation becomes blurred, raising concerns about long-term independence. As noted in transition studies, niche initiatives that gain recognition often face the risk of being absorbed or redirected by incumbent actors, blurring the line between empowerment and co-optation (Smith et al., 2005).

## 6. Conclusion

This paper examined the development of the Senegalese agroecological niche over four decades through the lens of *niche orchestration*, thereby advancing understanding of socio-technical niche formation and the ecologies of intermediation that underpin sustainability transitions. Drawing on a longitudinal case from Senegal, the analysis traced how early project-based intermediaries gradually aligned and synergised into a coherent, empowered agroecological niche. Unlike most studies that emphasise distributed or fragmented intermediation, this case shows how a rooted NGO emerged as a central orchestrator, steering an advocacy coalition to align dispersed initiatives across places and scales.

Theoretically, the paper conceptualises *niche orchestration* as a governance mechanism that generates cooperation and momentum through cyclical, rhythmic and multi-scalar processes, integrating systemic intermediation functions such as networking, visioning, knowledge capitalisation and policy dialogue. Practically, it illustrates how orchestration can accelerate transitions by providing coherence and political traction, while also creating risks of dependency and co-optation that require careful management.

Future research should examine the conditions under which orchestration accelerates transitions and compare its manifestations across sectors and regions, from agriculture to energy and health, in both Global North and South contexts. It should also explore how tensions between advocacy and co-optation are negotiated to ensure that orchestration sustains genuinely transformative rather than instrumental roles.

### Funding sources

The authors warmly thank all members of the DyTAES coalition and its territorial branches for their collaboration and trust throughout this research. The research was supported by CIRAD and by several funding initiatives, including Agroecology Initiative One-CGIAR, the TSARA PRATAM initiative, the ACROPICS project funded by the European Union, and the SOR4D-ARTS project supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). It benefited from state assistance managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the Programme d'Investissements d'Avenir integrated into France 2030, attributed to the WAYS-OUT project (ANR-19-MPGA-0010).

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**R. Belmin:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. **B. Turnheim:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization. **B. Gaillard:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Data curation. **S. Boillat:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Software, Data curation. **P. Bottazzi:** Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. **A. Mbodj:** Validation, Resources. **A. Loconto:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Appendices

List of references from grey literature used to support the empirical analysis
BAME, 2021. FATICK 2035 : La prospective au service de la politique territoriale

Belmin R. and Camara A.D., 2022. Au Sénégal, la grande caravane de l'agroécologie reprend la route ! The Conversation. [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. http://theconversation.com/au-senegal-la-grande-caravane-de-lagroecologie-reprend-la-route-176575

Belmin, R., Piraux, M., Camara, A.D., Mbodj, A., Tounkara, S., Dramé, B. (2024a). Rapport de l'atelier national sur les interactions entre science, pratiques et mouvements sociaux dans l'agroécologie au Sénégal (Dakar, 29 août 2024). CIRAD, ISRA, CGIAR, DyTAES, 42 p.

Belmin, R., Dione, G., Mbaye, B., Gueye Fall, M., Kebe, N. B., Ka, A., ... & Piraux, M. (2024b). Designing an agroecological territory for the department of Fatick, Senegal. Ideotyping workshop report. Dakar, Senegal, September 2-6, 2024. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/611597/

Belmin, R. and Thouvenot, M. (2024) Expo-event "YAAY DUND - Regenerating the living world. Summary report - December 2024. 14 p. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/d57d8695-fcac-4240-890a-f892332fc3e6

Bottazzi, P., J. Bastide, A. Ba and I. Wade, Eds. (2023). Les politiques agraires au Sénégal. Défis politiques et institutionnels face à la transition agroécologique, JRC External Study Report.

Bottazzi et al. 2024. Civil society in Senegal spearheads policy for agroecology. Rooted Issue 1-2024: Policies for Agroecology. https://rooted-magazine.org/2024/09/01/civil-society-in-senegal-spearheads-policy-for-agroecology/

Brun, L., 2018. "L'accaparement des terres, une menace pour lamise à l'échelle de l'agroécologie au Sénégal." Agripade Numero Spécial Farming Matters(mach): 26-31.

CIRAD 2021a. Au Sénégal, le Cirad accompagne la transition agroécologique. CIRAD. [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.cirad.fr/nos-activites-notre-impact/notre-impact/recits-d-impact/au-senegal-le-cirad-accompagne-la-transition-agroecologique

CIRAD 2021b. Agroécologie | Une reconnaissance politique au plus haut niveau mondial. CIRAD. [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.cirad.fr/les-actualites-du-cirad/actualites/2021/agroecologie-reconnaissance-politique-mondiale

CIRAD 2021c. Sénégal : le pays se mobilise pour une transition agroécologique. CIRAD. [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.cirad.fr/espace-presse/communiques-de-presse/2020/agroecologie-senegal-politiques-publiques

ARTS, 2025, L'agroécologie en scènes. Actes d'atelier de scénarisation transformative, DyTAEL de Mbour, 18-20 février 2025
COSTEA 2024. COSTEA. Ensemble pour relever les défis de l'agriculture irriguée. COSTEA. [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.comite-costea.fr/

Diop, A. M. (2016). Sénégal: Dynamiques paysannes et souveraineté alimentaire-Le procès de production, la tenue foncière et la naissance d'un mouvement paysan, Harmattan Sénégal.

Divecosys 2021. La DyTAES aux Montpellier Global Days / [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.divecosys.org/en/news/la-dytaes-aux-montpellier-global-days

DyTAES 2020a. Contribution aux politiques nationales pour une transition agroécologique au Sénégal. Dakar (Sénégal) : Dynamique pour une Transition Agro-écologique au Sénégal (DyTAES) : 95 p.

DyTAES 2020b. Journées de l'Agroécologie 3ème édition. 30 janvier au 1er février 2020. Rapport. 40 p.

DyTAES 2020c. Charte d'engagement.

DyTAES 2021a. Après le Nouveau Sommet Afrique France, l'exposition photo de la DyTAES a voyagé jusqu'à Glasgow où elle a orné les murs du World Leader Summit dans le cadre de la #COP26 ! [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.facebook.com/DyTAES/posts/465707831636340/

DyTAES 2021b. En 2036, Bignona doit atteindre le bien-être dans un environnement dynamique et durable par le biais de l'agroécologie – Dytaes. https://dytaes.sn/activites/bignona-doit-atteindre-le-bien-etre-dans-un-environnement-dynamique-et-durable/

DyTAES 2021c. La DyTAEL de la zone de Tambacounda continue son chemin – DyTAES. https://dytaes.sn/activites/la-dytael-de-podor-continue-son-chemin/

DyTAES 2021d. Rencontre des acteurs de l'agroécologie du bassin arachidier – DyTAES. https://dytaes.sn/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/brochure-Yobalu-askan-Wi_-compressed-2.pdf

DyTAES, 2021e. DyTAES à la structuration du PSE-Vert. [consulté le 29 avril 2025]. https://dytaes.sn/activites/la-dytaes-participe-a-la-structuration-du-pse-vert/

DyTAES 2022a. Etat d'avancement des activités de la DyTAES juin 2022. Communication orale.

DyTAES 2022b. Caravane DyTAES 2022 Bilan et perspectives. Communication orale.

DyTAES 2022c. COP 15 : la DyTAES au rendez-vous – DyTAES. https://dytaes.sn/actualites/participation-de-la-dytaes-a-la-cop-15/

DyTAES 2022d. Accès et gestion durable de l'eau agricole au Sénégal. Note de positionnement de la DyTAES dans le cadre du Forum Mondial de l'Eau 2022.

DyTAES 2022e. Rapport de l'atelier de restitution de la caravane DyTAES 2022. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1YkVo14Gwi-6d762Kpw1azcHYovdTJhcQ

DyTAES, 2022f. Inventaire des initiatives agroécologiques au Sénégal. Dakar.

DyTAES, 2023a. For agroecological food systems in Senegal. Policy Brief - Food Sovereignty, Feb. 2023 https://dytaes.sn/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Policy-brief-FOOD-SOVEREIGNTY.pdf

DyTAES, 2023b. Promoting agroecological alternatives in Senegal. Policy Brief - Reduced dependency on chemical inputs, Feb. 2023 https://dytaes.sn/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Policy-brief-INPUT.pdf

DyTAES, 2023c. Towards equitable access and sustainable management of water by family farms. Policy Brief – Productive water in Senegal, Feb. 2023 https://dytaes.sn/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Policy-brief-WATER.pdf
DyTAES, 2023d. For sustainable agriculture. Policy Brief – Restoring soil fertility in Senegal, Feb. 2023 https://dytaes.sn/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Policy-brief-SOILS.pdf

DyTAES 2023e. Catalogue des initiatives agroécologiques au Sénégal.

DyTAES 2024. Rencontre bilan des 5 ans de la DyTAES. Rapport Général. Dakar, Novembre 2024. https://dytaes.sn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Rencontre-bilan-des-5-ans-de-la-DyTAES_Rapport-general.pdf

Enda Tiers-Monde E. 2022. One Planet Summit: contribution de Mariam Sow, PCA d'Enda Tiers Monde et d'Enda Pronat. Enda Tiers-Monde. [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://endatiersmonde.org/aiovg_videos/one-planet-summit-contribution-de-mariam-sow-pca-denda-tiers-monde-et-se-denda-pronat/

Enda Pronat, 2010. Des pesticides à une agriculture saine et durable. La souveraineté des peuples. 221p. Dakar, 2010. https://endapronat.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Des-pesticides-a-IASD.pdf

Enda pronat, 2016. Et si on écoutait la terre pour une agriculture paysanne durable. Edition ENDA Tiers monde & NENA (Alter développement), 253p. ISBN: 978-2-37015-597-9 https://www.librairienumeriqueafricaine.com/livrel/si-ecoutait-terre-agriculture-paysanne-durable

FAIR-Sahel 2020. L'intensification agroécologique pour la résilience des exploitations dans le Sahel [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.fair-sahel.org/

FONGS 2021. Déclaration de la DYTAEL de Podor à leur atelier de réflexion sur le dialogue multi-acteurs pour une transition agro écologique [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. http://www.fongs.sn/spip.php?article600

Germain, P., & Thiam, A. (1983). Les pesticides au Sénégal: une menace? Environnement Africain, Série Etudes et Recherches, 1983, No. 83, 57pp. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/19841812534

Grimaud, L., 2021. L'agroécologie au Sénégal : entre diversité d'acteurs et d'initiatives. (Mémoire Master II). CIRAD - PFONGUE, Dakar.

Hautebois, A. 2023. Face à la pénurie d'engrais chimiques, le Sénégal promeut des alternatives « vertes ». Le Monde, 18 mai 2023. https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2023/05/18/face-a-la-penurie-d-engrais-chimiques-le-senegal-promeut-des-alternatives-vertes_6173894_3212.html

IRD 2021. 23-26 Novembre 2021, Dakar - 3e conférence sur l'intensification durable [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.ird.fr/23-26-novembre-2021-dakar-3eme-conference-sur-intensification-durable

Koopman, J. (2012). "Land grabs, government, peasant and civil society activism in the Senegal River Valley." Review of African Political Economy 39(134): 655-664.

Lequotidien 2021. Agriculture - Subvention des engrais : 10% pour les fertilisants organiques

Médiaterre 2019. La dynamique du Sénégal dans la transition agroécologique - Médiaterre [consulté le 28 avril 2025]. https://www.mediaterre.org/actu,20190911114433,5.html

MA 2008. GOANA : Programme agricole 2008-2009: La Grande Offensive Agricole pour la Nourriture et l'Abondance. Ministère de l'Agriculture: 36 p.

MAER 2014. Programme d'accélération de la cadence de l'agriculture sénégalais (PRACAS). Volet agricole du Plan Sénégal Emergent (PSE). Document principal

MAHRSA 2006. Plan REVA - Retour vers l'Agriculture. Nouvelle orientation de la politique agricole, note introductive. Ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Hydraulique Rurale et de la Sécurité Alimentaire : 13 p.

Mbodj, A and Ndoye, K, 2024. La force des alliances locales pour co-construire des politiques alimentaires autour de l'agroécologie.

Grain de sel N°86 - 2024 # 1. https://www.inter-reseaux.org/wp-content/uploads/GDS-No86-18-19.pdf

MEDD 2021. Plan Sénégal Emergent

Milhorance, C., A. Camara, J.-M. Sourisseau, M. Piraux, C. A. Mane, N. Sirdey, R. Belmin, D.-Y. Ka, M. Sall and M. C. A. Sall (2023). "L'intégration de l'agroécologie dans les politiques publiques du Sénégal." CIRAD-ISRA.

MISEREOR, 2010. Promouvoir l'agriculture saine et durable auprès des exploitations familiales Voies durables pour un meilleur système alimentaire au Sénégal. Rapport final. 137p. https://www.misereor.org/fileadmin/user_upload_misereororg/cooperation/fr/evaluation/rapport-agroecologie-final-senegal.pdf

Ndiaye T 2024. Le Sénégal s'agroécologise-t-il ? Défis Sud n° 141 | Édition annuelle 2024. https://www.humundi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/article_dytaes.pdf

Oakland Institute & AFSA. 2018. The west african integrated Production and pest management Program (IPPM). Location: Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/default/files/files-archive/Integrated_Production_Pest_Management_West_Africa.pdf

OXFAM, 2020. Regreening the sahel: A quiet agroecological revolution. Oxfam case study, November 2020. https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621091/cs-regreening-sahel-quiet-agroecological-revolution-051120-en.pdf?sequence=4

Peyton N. 2020. Senegal turns to eco-farming to protect food supply as climate changes [consulté le 28 avril 2025] url: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/senegal-turns-to-eco-farming-to-protect-food-supply-as-climate-changes-idUSKBN1ZT2PS/.

Touré, O. and Sylla, I. 2019. Etude de faisabilité. Partenariat multi-acteurs pour la transition agroécologique. Enda Pronat. https://endapronat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/RAPPORT-ETUDE-TAE_Enda-Pronat_Version-finale-copie.pdf

Yobalu Askan Wi, 2024. Les communautés interpellent les candidat.es à la présidentielle. Auditions citoyennes 2024. https://dytaes.sn/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/brochure-Yobalu-askan-Wi_compressed-2.pdf
# Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

# References

Abbott, K.W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., Zangl, B., 2021. Orchestration: global governance through intermediaries. The Spectrum of International Institutions. Routledge.

Abbott, K.W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., Zangl, B., 2015. International Organizations as Orchestrators. Cambridge University Press.

Abbott, K.W., Snidal, D., 2010. International regulation without international government: improving IO performance through orchestration. Rev. Int. Organ. 5, 315-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-010-9092-3.

Abbott, K.W., Snidal, D., 2009. Strengthening international regulation through transmittal new governance: overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 42, 501.

Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., 2012. Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency. In: Lichtfouse, E. (Ed.), Sustainable Agriculture Reviews. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5449-2_1. Volume 11.

Bäckstrand, K., Kuyper, J.W., Linnér, B.-O., Lövbrand, E., 2017. Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environmental politics.

Barrie, J., Kanda, W., 2020. Building ecologies of circular intermediaries. Handbook of the Circular Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 235-249.

Batterink, M.H., Wubben, E.F.M., Klerkx, L., Omta, S.W.F.(O), 2010. Orchestrating innovation networks: the case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector. Entrepreneursh. Region. Dev. 22, 47-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903220512.

Bayart, J.-F., Ellis, S., 2000. Africa in the World: a history of extraversion. Afr. Aff. (Lond) 99, 217-267.

Belmin, R., Paulin, M., Malézieux, E., 2023. Adapting agriculture to climate change: which pathways behind policy initiatives? Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43, 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00910-y.

Bendjebbar, P., Pouilleux, E., 2022. Exploring national trajectories of organic agriculture in Africa. Comparing Benin and Uganda. J. Rural Stud. 89, 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.012.

Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A.J., Raven, R., Lebel, L., Bai, X., 2010. Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.010. Socio-technical experiments in Asia - a driver for sustainability transition?

Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., 2007. Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regul. Gov. 1, 347-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00021.x.

Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., Zelli, F., 2009. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9, 14-40. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14.

Boillat, S., Belmin, R., Bottazzi, P., 2022. The agroecological transition in Senegal: transnational links and uneven empowerment. Agric. Hum. Values 39, 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10247-5.

Bottazzi, P., Boillat, S., 2021a. Agroecological farmer movements and advocacy coalitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: between de-politicization and re-politicization. In: Räthzel, N., Stevis, D., Uzzell, D. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Labour Studies. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 415-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71909-8_18.

Bottazzi, P., Boillat, S., 2021b. Political agroecology in Senegal: historicity and repertoires of collective actions of an emerging social movement. Sustainability 13, 6352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116352.

Bottazzi, P., Bastide, J., Landrin, L., 2026. Territorialiser l'agroécologie au Sénégal: combiner méthodes créatives et réflexivité pour une recherche engagée. DIOUF, Ibrahima Faye. (dir.) *Système Alimentaire Territorialisé Et Enjeux De Développement Dans Les Suds*. L'Harmattan. UCAD, Dakar, pp. 150-165.

Bourguignon, F., Platteau, J.-P., 2015. The hard challenge of aid coordination. World Dev. 69, 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.12.011. Aid Policy and the Macroeconomic Management of Aid.

Chan, S., Falkner, R., van Asselt, H., Goldberg, M., 2015. Strengthening non-state climate action: a progress assessment of commitments launched at the 2014 UN Climate Summit [WWW Document]. URL http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/ (accessed 11.22.22).

Corbin, J., 2021. Strauss's grounded theory. Developing Grounded Theory. Routledge.

Côte, F.-X., Poirier-Magona, E., Perret, S., Roudier, P., Rapidel, B., Thirion, M.-C. (Eds.), 2019. La transition agro-écologique des agricultures du Sud. Éditions Quae. 10.35690/978-2-7592-2824-9.

Darnhofer, I., 2015. Socio-technical transitions in farming: key concepts. Transition Pathways Towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe. CABI Books, pp. 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780642192.0017.

Dhanaraj, C., Parkhe, J., 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. AMR 31, 659-669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923.

Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., Beuret, J.-E., 2013. Green tides in Brittany: what can we learn about niche-regime interactions? Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 8, 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2013.04.002.

Eberlein, B., Abbott, K.W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., Wood, S., 2014. Transnational business governance interactions: conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regul. Gov. 8, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12030.

FAO, 2018. The 10 Elements of Agroecology. Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems. FAO Rome.

FAO, and INRAE, 2020. Achieving Social and Economic Development in Africa Through Ecological and Organic Agricultural Alternatives. Innovators' Handbook, Rome.

Gaillard, B., Turnheim, B., Belmin, R., Loconto, A.M., 2025. Socio-technical lock-in as alignment process: tracing the joint development of pesticide dependency and vegetable production in Senegal (1900-2024). Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 56, 100997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.100997.

Gaitán-Cremaschi, D., Valbuena, D., Klerkx, L., 2024. The roles and dynamics of transition intermediaries in enabling sustainable public food procurement: insights from Spain. Agric. Hum. Values 41, 1591-1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10562-7.

Gamson, W.A., 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Garrido-Garza, F., Loconto, A., Robinson, D.K.R., 2025. Agroecological entrepreneurship: a driving force in the sustainable transformation of agri-food systems. Entrepreneursh. Region. Dev. 37, 1170-1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/0898562025.2530563.

Geels, F., Deuten, J.J., 2006. Local and global dynamics in technological development: a socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Sci. Public Policy 33, 265-275. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778984.

Geels, F., Raven, R., 2006. Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973-2003). Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 18, 375-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777143.

Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy 33, 897-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.

Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36, 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.

Ghosh, B., Ramos-Mejía, M., Machado, R.C., Yuana, S.L., Schiller, K., 2021. Decolonising transitions in the Global South: towards more epistemic diversity in transitions research. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 41, 106-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.029. Celebrating a decade of EIST: What's next for transition studies?

Giagnocavo, C., de Cara-García, M., González, M., Juan, M., Marín-Guirao, J.I., Mehrabi, S., Rodríguez, E., van der Blom, J., Crisol-Martínez, E., 2022. Reconnecting farmers with nature through agroecological transitions: interacting niches and experimentation and the role of agricultural knowledge and Innovation systems. Agriculture 12, 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020137.
Gliessman, S., 2018. Defining agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42, 599–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1432329.

Groot-Kormelink, A., Bijman, J., Trienekens, J., Klerkx, L., 2022. Producer organizations as transition intermediaries? Insights from organic and conventional vegetable systems in Uruguay. Agric. Hum. Values 39, 1277–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10316-3.

Hale, T., Roger, C., 2014. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Rev. Int. Organ. 9, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-013-9174-0.

Hansen, U.E., Nygaard, I., Romijn, H., Wieczorek, A., Kamp, L.M., Klerkx, L., 2018. Sustainability transitions in developing countries: stocktaking, new contributions and a research agenda. Environ. Sci. Policy 84, 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.009.

Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2013. Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 868–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008.

Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., 2018. Developing transformative and orchestrating capacities for climate governance experimentation in Rotterdam. Innovating Climate Governance. Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108277679.010.

Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 35, 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005.

Ingram, J., 2015. Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: an analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. J. Rural Stud. 40, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.003.

IPES-Food, 2018. Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems: seven case studies of agroecological transition. International Panel of Experts in Sustainable Food Systems Brussels.

Iyabano, A., Klerkx, L., Faure, G., Toillier, A., 2022. Farmers' organizations as innovation intermediaries for agroecological innovations in Burkina Faso. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 20, 857–873. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.2002089.

Jessop, B., 1998. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50, 29–45.

Kanda, W., Kuisma, M., Kivimaa, P., Hjelm, O., 2020. Conceptualising the systemic activities of intermediaries in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 36, 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.002.

Kanda, W., Magnusson, T., Hjelm, O., 2024. Intermediaries and intermediation in sustainability transitions. 10.33774/coe-2024-52n4r.

Kemp, R., Rip, A., Schot, J., 2001. Constructing transition paths through the management of niches. Path Dependence and Creation. Psychology Press.

Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 10, 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.

Kern, F., Verhees, B., Raven, R., Smith, A., 2015. Empowering sustainable niches: comparing UK and Dutch offshore wind developments. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 100, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.004.

Kilelu, C.W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Hall, A., 2011. Beyond knowledge brokering: an exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Knowl. Manag. Dev. J. 7, 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2011.593859.

Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., Klerkx, L., 2019a. Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: a systematic review and a research agenda. In: Proceedings of the Research Policy, New Frontiers in Science, Technology and Innovation Research from SPRU's 50th Anniversary Conference, 48, pp. 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006.

Kivimaa, P., Hyysalo, S., Boon, W., Klerkx, L., Martiskainen, M., Schot, J., 2019b. Passing the baton: how intermediaries advance sustainability transitions in different phases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.001.

Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., 2018. Dynamics of policy change and intermediation: the arduous transition towards low-energy homes in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.032.

Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 76, 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001.

Klijn, E.-H., Edelenbos, J., 2007. Meta-governance as network management. In: Sørensen, E., Torfing, J. (Eds.), Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp. 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625006_12.

Knack, S., Rahman, A., 2007. Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients. J. Dev. Econ. 83, 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.02.002.

Koopman, J., 2012. Land grabs, government, peasant and civil society activism in the Senegal River Valley. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 39, 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2012.738797.

Kutter, L., Wolf, P., Rothbarth, C.S., 2023. Shall we dance? How systemic intermediaries coordinate interaction within local sustainability initiatives over time. Creat. Innov. Manag. 32, 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12544.

Lamine, C., Magda, D., Rivera-Ferre, M., Marsden, T. (Eds.), 2021. Agroecological Transitions, Between Determinist and Open-Ended Visions. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.

Lawhon, M., Murphy, J.T., 2012. Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: insights from political ecology. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 354–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511427960.

Lobo, E.A., de Melo Filho, J.I.B., Tahim, E.F., Câmara, S.F., 2024. The orchestration approach in innovation: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 21, 2430005. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877024300052.

Loconto, A., Fouilleux, E., 2014. Politics of private regulation: ISEAL and the shaping of transnational sustainability governance. Regul. Gov. 8, 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12028.

Loconto, A., Jimenez, A., Vandecandelaere, E., Tartanac, F., 2018. Agroecology, local food systems and their markets. AGER Rev. Estud. Sobre Despoblación Desarro. Rural = J. Depopulation Rural Dev. Stud. 25, 13–42.

Loconto, A.M., Poisot, A.S., Santacoloma, P., 2016. Innovative Markets For Sustainable Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.

Lombart, M., Pierrat, K., Redon, M., 2014. Port-au-Prince : un « projectateur » haïtien ou l'urbanisme de projets humanitaires en question. Cah. Am. Lat. 2014/1, 97–124. https://doi.org/10.4000/cal.3142.

Luna, J.K., Chalit Hernandez, B., Sawadogo, A., 2021. The paradoxes of purity in organic agriculture in Burkina Faso. Geoforum 127, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.09.014.

Manning, S., Roessler, D., 2014. The formation of cross-sector development partnerships: how bridging agents shape project agendas and longer-term alliances. J. Bus. Ethics 123, 527–547.

Marfurt, F., Haller, T., Bottazzi, P., 2023. Green agendas and white markets: the coloniality of agroecology in Senegal. Land 12, 1324. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071324 (Basel).

Mohajan, D., Mohajan, H.K., 2022. Constructivist grounded theory: a new research approach in social science. Res. Adv. Educ. 1, 8–16.

Moseley, W.G., 2024. Decolonizing African Agriculture: Food Security, Agroecology and the Need for Radical Transformation. Agenda Publishing Limited.

Moss, T., 2009. Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transition. Environ. Plan A 41, 1480–1495. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4116.

Ninnin, P., 2023. Domestic markets for the East African organic agriculture. The place of institutions, standards and certification. IIABA work package 3: Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS).

Pegram, T., 2015. Global human rights governance and orchestration: national human rights institutions as intermediaries. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 21, 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114548079.

Pesche, D., 2009. Construction du mouvement paysan et élaboration des politiques agricoles en Afrique subsaharienne: le cas du Sénégal. Politique Afr. 114, 139–155. https://doi.org/10.3917/polaf.114.0139.

Ramirez, M., Clarke, I., Klerkx, L., 2018. Analysing intermediary organisations and their influence on upgrading in emerging agricultural clusters. Environ. Plan A 50, 1314–1335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17741316.

Raven, R., Kern, F., Verhees, B., Smith, A., 2016. Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 18, 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.02.002.
Raven, R., van den Bosch, S., Weterings, R., 2010. Transitions and strategic niche management: towards a competence kit for practitioners. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 51, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2010.033128.

Raven, R.P.J.M., Heiskanen, E., Lovio, R., Hodson, M., Brohmann, B., 2008. The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (Niche) technologies: meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28, 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467608317523.

Rodríguez-Carmona, A., 2009. El proyectorado. Bolivia tras 20 años de ayuda externa. La Paz.

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003.

Schiller, K.J.F., Klerkx, L., Salazar Centeno, D.J., Poortvliet, P.M., 2023. Developing the agroecological niche in Nicaragua: the roles of knowledge flows and intermediaries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120, e2206195120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206195120.

Schot, J., Hoogma, R., Elzen, B., 1994. Strategies for shifting technological systems: the case of the automobile system. Futures 26, 1060–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(94)90073-6.

Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Polit. 16, 584–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701419121.

Seyfang, G., Longhurst, N., 2016. What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community currency niches. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 28, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1063603.

Shi, Q., Shen, L., 2021. Orchestration capability: a bibliometric analysis. Kybernetes 51, 3073–3094. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2021-0386.

Smith, A., Raven, R., 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res. Policy Spec. Sect. Sustain. Transit. 41, 1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012.

Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res. Policy 34, 1491–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005.

Sovacool, B.K., Turnheim, B., Martiskainen, M., Brown, D., Kivimaa, P., 2020. Guides or gatekeepers? Incumbent-oriented transition intermediaries in a low-carbon era. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66, 101490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101490.

Teschner, N., Orenstein, D.E., 2022. A transdisciplinary study of agroecological niches: understanding sustainability transitions in vineyards. Agric. Hum Values 39, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10220-2.

Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., Berkhout, F., 2018. Experiments and beyond: an emerging agenda for climate governance innovation. In: Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., Berkhout, F. (Eds.), Innovating Climate Governance. Cambridge University Press, pp. 216–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108277679.015.

van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., van Waveren, B., 2003. Roles of systemic intermediaries in transition processes. Int. J. Innov. Mgt. 07, 247–279. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919603000817.

Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., 2021. Learning to find a way out of non-sustainable systems. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 39, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.04.001.

Vilas-Boas, J., Klerkx, L., Lie, R., 2022. Facilitating international animal welfare standards implementation in national contexts: the role of intermediaries in Brazilian pig production. J. Rural Stud. 90, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.01.012.

Yap, X.-S., Truffer, B., 2019. Shaping selection environments for industrial catch-up and sustainability transitions: a systemic perspective on endogenizing windows of opportunity. In: Proceedings of the Research Policy, New Frontiers in Science, Technology and Innovation Research from SPRU's 50th Anniversary Conference, 48, pp. 1030–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.002.