Governing digital innovation in livestock systems: institutional gaps and coordination challenges in Benin

Abstract

Digital technologies offer transformative potential for livestock systems by enhancing productivity, resource efficiency, and market access. However, institutional and governance challenges often constrain the adoption of such innovations. This study explores how national policies, legal frameworks, and actor configurations influence the development and use of digital tools in Benin’s livestock sector. A qualitative exploratory design was adopted using Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. Data were collected through documentary analysis of key legal instruments and strategic plans and unstructured interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders, including public officials, farmer organizations, NGOs, and agri-tech startups. Thematic coding and triangulation were used to analyze how institutional arrangements influence digital innovation in livestock systems. While Benin has established digital and agricultural policies, they lack specificity for livestock systems. Regulatory voids, fragmented governance, and unclear data protection frameworks undermine stakeholder trust and coordination. Stakeholders operate under divergent logics—bureaucratic, commercial, and advocacy-driven—resulting in isolated pilot projects that are unable to scale or integrate into national systems. Institutional exclusion of farmer voices further limits the relevance and uptake of digital tools. The study highlights that without coherent regulatory frameworks, coordinated governance platforms, and inclusive stakeholder participation, digital innovations in livestock systems are unlikely to achieve systemic impact. Effective digital transformation requires sector-specific policy development, multi-stakeholder engagement, and integration of digital services into extension systems. These institutional reforms are essential for realizing digital agriculture’s potential in supporting resilient and equitable livestock livelihoods.

Introduction

Agriculture is changing as a result of digital technologies increased sustainability, efficiency, and productivity. Innovations like automated monitoring systems, mobile advisory tools, and remote sensing have emerged as crucial instruments for agricultural production management in recent years (Gouroubera et al., 2024; Jarial and Sachan, 2021; Klerkx et al., 2019). Digital solutions in the livestock industry can lower environmental effects, improve animal health, and streamline farm operations (Guzaliya et al., 2022; Leong et al., 2024). According to Finger (2023), these technologies can boost productivity and lower expenses by improving resource management (Kumar et al., 2023), and enhance market accessibility (Bahn et al., 2021). By lowering greenhouse gas emissions, they also help achieve environmental goals (Wang et al., 2024), enhancing the use of feed and water, and aiding in the preservation of biodiversity (Garske et al., 2021).

Many farmers in sub-Saharan Africa still encounter difficulties implementing digital agriculture technologies, despite the growing interest in this field (Bashiru et al., 2024; Gouroubera et al., 2024). Poor internet access, exorbitant prices, a lack of digital skills, and a lack of faith in technology are some of the obstacles (Cui and Wang, 2023; Fragomeli et al., 2024). Adaptive tools and knowledge-based practices are more important because the region’s agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. In this regard, digital innovations present fresh opportunities to enhance resilience when obstacles to adoption are removed. Numerous factors have been found to influence adoption, including anticipated financial gains (Fragomeli et al., 2024), digital literacy (Lima et al., 2018), and peer pressure (Marshall et al., 2022), but these are frequently insufficient to get past systemic barriers, particularly in rural areas.

The livestock sector deserves special attention in digital transformation strategies. Livestock production is important for food security, income generation, and rural development in Africa. However, it is also highly exposed to climate risks and resource constraints. While some digital tools for animal identification, disease monitoring, and veterinary services have emerged, the livestock sector remains largely absent from national digital strategies. This limits the ability of farmers and institutions to benefit from innovations. Studying this sector can help identify the specific challenges and opportunities of digital transformation in a critical but often neglected area of agricultural development.

Digital transformation in agriculture depends not only on access to technology, but also on the institutional environment in which it takes place. The design and implementation of digital tools are influenced by policy frameworks, regulations, coordination mechanisms, and organizational practices (Rotz et al., 2019). Factors such as infrastructure development, data governance, and public-private collaboration are essential for adoption (Kok and Klerkx, 2023; Rotz et al., 2019). Political and institutional decisions shape who benefits from digital innovations and under what conditions. While institutional and political factors can facilitate digital transformation, they can also create challenges, such as unequal access to technology and the risk of exacerbating existing inequalities in the agricultural sector (Fragomeli et al., 2024; Kok and Klerkx, 2023). Addressing these issues requires a balanced approach that considers both technological advancement and social equity. To better understand these dynamics, this article examines the extent to which institutional and governance frameworks affect the development and adoption of digital innovations in the livestock sector in Benin.

Benin’s livestock sector is a vital component of its agricultural economy and rural livelihoods. As of 2021, the national herd comprised approximately 2.5 million cattle (ECOWAS Commission, 2022). This sector contributes roughly 13% of agricultural GDP, equivalent to about 6% of Benin’s national GDP, underscoring its economic significance (ECOWAS Commission, 2022). Livestock is also a critical source of income for rural households—over 60% of farm families engage in livestock farming, with many depending primarily on it for their livelihoods (Akouegnonhou and Demirbaş, 2021). Despite this importance, the sector faces persistent challenges, including limited productivity, degraded pastures, recurrent diseases, and underdeveloped value chains. These constraints highlight the urgency of introducing digital solutions—such as advisory tools, market platforms, and precision monitoring—to strengthen decision-making, enhance productivity, and bolster the resilience of Benin’s livestock systems.

This study uses the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to analyze the formal and informal rules that structure digital agriculture (Ostrom, 2009). The IAD approach is useful for identifying how laws, policies, and institutional practices influence interactions between actors and the outcomes of digital innovation. By applying this framework to the case of livestock in Benin, the study contributes to the growing literature on digital agriculture governance in the Global South and provides practical insights for improving institutional support for sustainable digital transformation.

Methodology

Analytical framework: institutional analysis and development (IAD)

We employ the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework developed by Ostrom (2005) to examine how institutional arrangements influence the development and adoption of digital innovations in Benin’s livestock sector. The IAD framework provides a structured approach to understanding the interactions among actors, rules, and contextual factors within a governance system, leading to specific outcomes.

The action arena, where people and organizations interact, make decisions, and affect results, is at the heart of the IAD framework. These interactions are shaped by three main components: rules-in-use, attributes of the community, and physical and material conditions (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Rules-in-use encompass formal laws, policies, and informal norms that govern behavior (Montes et al., 2022; Ostrom, 2009). In this study, they include national digital strategies, legal frameworks such as the Digital Code, sectoral development plans, and regulations (or their absence) concerning data governance, tool certification, and platform coordination in agriculture and livestock. Attributes of the community refer to the characteristics of actors involved in digital agriculture, including public institutions, private companies, NGOs, farmer organizations, and donors (Montes et al., 2022; Ostrom, 2011; Raheem, 2014). These actors possess varying resources, mandates, values, and levels of influence, which shape their actions and interactions. Physical and material conditions pertain to the technical and infrastructural context in which digital innovations operate (Ostrom, 2009; 2011). This includes access to internet and mobile services, availability of digital platforms and devices, and the state of livestock farming systems (Montes et al., 2022).

The IAD framework also emphasizes the importance of outcomes and evaluation criteria, such as efficiency, equity, sustainability, and adaptability. In the context of this study, the key outcomes concern the adoption and integration of digital innovations in the livestock sector. The framework facilitates the identification of how institutional arrangements affect actors' incentives and constraints, and how these arrangements may support or hinder digital transformation.

The IAD framework has been applied in various agricultural contexts to analyze institutional dynamics (Boru et al., 2025; Ohashi et al., 2024; Téno and Cadilhon, 2017). For instance, it has been used to study the adoption of smart livestock technologies in Japanese small-farm systems, highlighting the interplay between individual farmer values, farm management policies, and social relations (Ohashi et al., 2024). In Africa, the framework has informed analyses of innovation platforms in Burkina Faso, focusing on stakeholder participation and institutional embedding in agricultural research for development (Téno and Cadilhon, 2017). Additionally, the IAD framework has been used to assess governance structures in Ethiopian integrated agro-industrial parks, emphasizing the role of stakeholder coordination and resource sharing in driving innovation (Boru et al., 2025).

This study attempts to offer a structured lens to evaluate the institutional aspects of digital agriculture by applying the IAD framework to the Benin livestock case. In order to add to the expanding body of research on digital agriculture governance in the Global South and provide useful advice for strengthening institutional support for long-term digital transformation, it looks for governance gaps, coordination issues, and possible areas for policy improvement.

Research design

This study adopts a qualitative exploratory research design to investigate how digital agriculture, particularly in the livestock sector, is integrated into Benin’s legal and institutional frameworks. The research aims to understand the roles and interactions of various stakeholders in shaping the adoption and implementation of digital innovations in agriculture.

The choice of a qualitative approach is justified by the complexity of the subject matter, which involves multifaceted institutional arrangements, policy documents, and stakeholder dynamics. Such an approach allows for an in-depth exploration of the contextual factors influencing digital agriculture policies and practices (Cordella and Paletti, 2018). To capture the nuanced perspectives of key actors, the study incorporates unstructured interviews with various categories of stakeholders, including government agencies, farmer organizations, NGOs, and digital innovation projects. This method facilitates the collection of rich, qualitative data that reflects the experiences and insights of those directly involved in the digital transformation of agriculture. The use of unstructured interviews is particularly suitable for exploratory research, as it allows respondents to express their views freely and provides the flexibility to probe deeper into emerging themes.

This qualitative exploratory research design, combining document analysis and unstructured interviews within the IAD framework, offers a comprehensive approach to understanding the integration of digital agriculture into Benin’s institutional landscape. It enables the identification of key factors that facilitate or hinder the adoption of digital innovations in the livestock sector, providing valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers interested in digital governance and agricultural development.

Data sources

Documentary analysis

In addition to legal texts, the analysis incorporated three key strategic policy documents in agriculture sector, including the National Strategy for e-Agriculture (2020–2024), the Strategic Plan for Agricultural Sector Development (PSDSA), and the National Agricultural Investment and Food Security Programme (PNIASAN). These documents were selected for their relevance to the promotion of digital innovation in agriculture and their influence on national development planning.

To complement the analysis and better understand the institutional landscape, the study also reviewed institutional documents, such as organizational charts, mandates, and official reports from relevant ministries—particularly the Ministry of Digital Economy and the Ministry of Agriculture. Additionally, materials produced by key implementation agencies, notably the Agence des Systèmes d’Information et du Numérique (ASIN), were examined to assess the operationalization of digital strategies.

Documents were selected based on their relevance to one or more of the following criteria: digital governance, agricultural and livestock policy, or institutional responsibilities in digital innovation. This document-based approach provided the basis for identifying the rules-in-use and institutional structures that shape the digital transformation of the livestock sector in Benin.

This documentary base provided a foundational understanding of the legal and policy environment structuring digital agriculture in Benin. From each document, we extracted information on policy objectives, institutional responsibilities, and references to digital agriculture, with particular attention to livestock-specific measures. Relevant passages were summarized and coded thematically to identify rules, actors, and governance mechanisms. This process allowed us to compare how different documents frame digital innovation and the role of livestock within broader agricultural strategies.

Unstructured interviews

The conversations were guided by broad themes rather than standardized questions, allowing respondents to share their perspectives in depth. The interviews explored perceptions of digital agriculture in livestock farming, existing policy and governance frameworks and their gaps, and the degree of stakeholder involvement in digital initiatives. Specific attention was given to identifying digital applications already introduced in the livestock sector, the actors who initiated them, and the challenges encountered in their implementation.

Data analysis procedures

The analysis followed a qualitative and iterative approach, structured around the components of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. The process involved three main phases: thematic coding, triangulation, and interpretive synthesis. Each phase contributed to identifying how institutional arrangements and actor dynamics shape the development and adoption of digital innovations in the livestock sector in Benin.

Thematic coding

Additional inductive codes emerged during the reading of materials, especially from unstructured interviews, such as: “lack of leadership,” “pilot fragmentation,” “regulatory uncertainty,” and “producer mistrust.” This dual approach—combining deductive codes from theory and inductive codes from the field—ensured both conceptual coherence and empirical sensitivity.

From this coding process, we further clustered recurrent patterns of reasoning and justification used by actors into distinct “logics of action” (institutional, commercial, advocacy, and experimental). These logics represent the practical ways in which stakeholders mobilize rules, resources, and narratives within the IAD framework, thus linking abstract institutional arrangements to observed governance practices.

Triangulation and cross-validation

Where inconsistencies appeared, additional interviews or re-analysis of documents were conducted to clarify and refine interpretations.

Synthesis and interpretation

The final stage involved synthesizing coded themes into broader analytical categories aligned with the IAD framework. Patterns were examined across stakeholder groups and institutional levels to identify structural gaps, enabling conditions, and systemic constraints.

The synthesized findings were then organized to inform the results sections of the article, structured around two main axes: (1) institutional frameworks and implementation gaps, and (2) actor configurations and governance mechanisms.

This approach allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the institutional environment shaping digital agriculture in Benin and provided evidence-based insights to support policy dialogue and reform efforts.

Results

Institutional and legal frameworks for digital agriculture in Benin

Overview of regulatory instruments

The regulatory and strategic landscape for digital agriculture in Benin has evolved significantly over the past decade, reflecting the government’s ambition to position digital technologies as levers of socioeconomic development. Since 2016, a series of legal instruments and policy documents have been adopted to structure the country’s digital transition. These texts establish the foundational rules, mandates, and institutional arrangements that define the national digital ecosystem. This section presents an overview of the key legal and strategic documents relevant to digital agriculture, with a focus on their scope, coherence, and relevance to the livestock sector.

Table 1 summarizes the main legal and strategic documents governing digital agriculture in Benin, highlighting their objectives, sectoral scope, and institutional limitations. It provides a comparative lens to assess the degree of integration of livestock concerns within the broader digital policy landscape.

One of the cornerstones of Benin’s digital governance is Law No. 2017-20 on the Digital Code, enacted in April 2018. This comprehensive legislation governs the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and aims to promote a secure, inclusive, and innovation-friendly digital environment. It includes provisions on cybersecurity (Art. 74), data protection (Art. 20), liability of digital service providers (Art. 443), and international cooperation against cybercrime (Art. 586–594). While broad in its application, the law does not include sector-specific provisions for agriculture or livestock, nor does it address the certification or governance of digital tools used in animal health and production. Its generalist approach reflects a common trend in emerging digital policy regimes where foundational legislation prioritizes cross-sectoral infrastructure over domain-specific regulation.

Complementing the Digital Code, several government decrees have sought to operationalize digital governance and infrastructure development. The Decree No. 2016-684, which articulates the Sectoral Policy Declaration for the Digital Economy, outlines strategic orientations for digital transformation and identifies agriculture as a priority sector for digitization. However, the document remains vague on mechanisms, targets, or implementation pathways specific to agriculture or livestock. Similarly, the Decree No. 2018-531 establishes the institutional governance of digital programs through sectoral committees and centralized steering bodies. While this framework promotes inter-ministerial collaboration, it lacks provisions for harmonizing digital initiatives across agriculture and digital economy portfolios, which is crucial for integrated digital agriculture.

A more targeted initiative is the National Strategy for e-Agriculture (2020–2024), developed with support from the FAO. This strategy aims to digitize agricultural value chains through capacity building, digital extension services, access to financial services, and improved market linkages. It explicitly includes the livestock sector as one of its application areas and aligns its interventions with the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIASAN). Nevertheless, the strategy remains aspirational in parts, with limited institutional anchoring and no dedicated provisions for livestock data governance, animal health platforms, or veterinary teleconsultation systems. Moreover, coordination responsibilities between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Digital Economy are not clearly delineated.

The Strategic Plan for the Development of the Agricultural Sector (PSDSA) provides a long-term vision for agricultural transformation in Benin. It emphasizes productivity gains, rural employment, and sustainable development, and acknowledges digital innovation as a potential enabler. However, the PSDSA and the associated PNIASAN (2017–2021) mention ICTs primarily in relation to crop production and input management, with limited references to livestock systems or digital animal health solutions. These plans prioritize structural interventions (e.g., irrigation, seed systems, infrastructure) over digital transition mechanisms. As a result, digital agriculture remains peripheral rather than central to sectoral planning.

In summary, Benin’s legal and policy landscape shows a progressive but uneven integration of digital agriculture. Foundational texts such as the Digital Code and sectoral strategies like the e-Agriculture Strategy provide a broad framework for digital innovation. However, the lack of specificity regarding livestock systems, coupled with institutional overlaps and vague implementation mandates, reveals a fragmented governance structure. From an IAD perspective, while the “rules-in-form” (formal policies) demonstrate intent and vision, the “rules-in-use” (actual coordination and sectoral alignment) remain weak or underdeveloped. This fragmentation potentially undermines the systemic scaling of digital livestock innovations and highlights the need for more integrated, sector-sensitive policy instruments.

Livestock-specific gaps and institutional fragmentation

While Benin has established several national strategies and legal instruments to promote digital transformation, their operational relevance to the livestock sector remains limited. Across all policy and legal documents reviewed—such as the Digital Code, the e-Agriculture Strategy, and the PSDSA—references to livestock systems are either marginal or entirely absent. Although agriculture is broadly mentioned, the specific challenges and requirements of digital innovation in livestock production are rarely addressed. This lack of sectoral specificity reflects a broader tendency to approach digital agriculture as a generic category, overlooking the distinct technical, biological, and governance needs of livestock systems.

A critical gap lies in the absence of dedicated digital governance instruments for animal data and health systems. For instance, there is no national framework regulating the collection, storage, or sharing of zootechnical data. Likewise, the emerging digital tools for animal identification, disease surveillance, and veterinary services—such as Souba, GléGan, or DigiVet—operate without formal accreditation procedures, technical standards, or oversight mechanisms. The lack of a certification system for digital veterinary solutions creates uncertainty about the reliability and safety of these tools, limiting their trustworthiness and potential for scale-up.

Institutionally, the governance of digital agriculture is marked by fragmentation and overlapping mandates. The Ministry of Agriculture oversees agricultural extension and sectoral planning, while the Ministry of Digital Economy manages digital infrastructure and strategy. However, there are no permanent coordination mechanisms linking the two domains. This disconnection has led to siloed interventions, where projects are initiated independently without cross-sectoral integration. Interviews revealed confusion over responsibilities and weak collaboration between departments, particularly in the deployment of digital tools for animal health and production.

The implementation of strategic documents is also constrained by the absence of sector-specific indicators or monitoring tools. Neither the e-Agriculture Strategy nor the PSDSA includes measurable targets for digital livestock innovation—such as traceability coverage, mobile veterinary service uptake, or data integration in extension systems. Without such indicators, tracking progress or adapting policy based on evidence remains difficult.

Finally, the lack of institutional leadership has hindered the creation of a national vision for digital livestock development. Although ASIN plays a central role in coordinating digital initiatives, its engagement with agricultural content is minimal. Meanwhile, livestock departments within the Ministry of Agriculture often lack the digital expertise or resources needed to guide innovation efforts. This situation results in a governance vacuum where innovation occurs, but without guidance, harmonization, or sustainability planning.

The digital transformation of Benin’s livestock sector is limited by a combination of regulatory voids, sectoral neglect, and institutional fragmentation. Addressing these gaps will require not only the inclusion of livestock in national digital strategies but also the development of dedicated regulatory frameworks and stronger coordination across ministries and agencies.

Actor configurations and logic of actions

Typology of stakeholders

The digital transformation of agriculture in Benin involves a wide range of stakeholders operating at different levels and with diverse mandates. These include public institutions, farmer organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research and training institutions, and private actors such as startups and mobile operators.

As shown in Table 2, these actors contribute to digital agriculture through roles that range from policy design and regulation (e.g., ministries and digital agencies), to service delivery and advocacy (e.g., farmer cooperatives, NGOs), and technological development (e.g., startups and innovation hubs). Their involvement, however, remains highly fragmented, with limited coordination across sectors and institutional levels.

Notably, public institutions often operate in silos, while producer organizations lack the resources to influence digital strategies meaningfully. NGOs and development partners play a key role in experimentation but are constrained by project-based logic and weak institutional anchoring. Private innovators are dynamic but face integration challenges due to regulatory uncertainty and limited public collaboration.

This fragmented configuration reflects broader governance weaknesses, where roles are distributed but not harmonized, and where platforms for coordination and dialogue are either absent or informal. Understanding the specific functions and limitations of each actor group is therefore essential to designing more inclusive and effective digital governance frameworks.

Logics of action: institutional, commercial, advocacy and experimentation

The diverse constellation of actors involved in digital agriculture in Benin—ranging from public institutions to NGOs, startups, and producer organizations—operate under different and sometimes competing logics of action. Understanding these underlying motivations is key to analyzing the fragmentation and partial coordination observed in the development and governance of digital tools in the livestock sector.

Institutional logic: mandate-driven planning and control

Public institutions such as the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Digital Economy operate primarily under an institutional logic, characterized by formal mandates, hierarchical decision-making, and a focus on regulatory oversight. Their orientation emphasizes national sovereignty over data, structured planning and sectoral development, as well as the standardization and control of technological innovation.

However, in practice, this logic often translates into top-down project design, limited responsiveness to grassroots needs, and an emphasis on compliance rather than adaptation. For example, while the Ministry of Agriculture acknowledges the importance of digitalization, it has yet to develop sector-specific guidelines for the certification or integration of livestock-related digital tools. Coordination with digital agencies is minimal, and digital infrastructure investments are often made without input from technical livestock departments.

Commercial logic: market orientation and scalability

Startups and telecom companies are primarily driven by a commercial logic. Their orientation emphasizes efficiency, profitability, and scalability, while prioritizing customer satisfaction through user-centric design. They also frame technological innovation as a market-based solution to the challenges faced by the agricultural sector.

Firms like GléGan and AgroSfer are developing digital platforms for veterinary services, animal traceability, and smart feeding systems. These solutions are often highly innovative but lack institutional anchoring or regulatory recognition. Moreover, many private actors perceive government regulations as slow-moving and ill-adapted to the speed of digital innovation, creating tension between entrepreneurial dynamism and bureaucratic inertia.

One consequence is the emergence of parallel digital ecosystems, where private solutions operate independently of public infrastructure. This fragmentation undermines data interoperability and weakens systemic integration—especially problematic in sensitive sectors like animal health, where standardization is critical.

Advocacy logic: inclusion, empowerment, and social justice

Non-governmental organizations and farmer associations tend to follow an advocacy logic, grounded in values of empowerment, participation, and rights-based development. Their interventions are often oriented toward enhancing digital literacy and access for vulnerable groups such as women, youth, and smallholders, while also promoting food sovereignty and localized innovation. At the same time, they emphasize the importance of safeguarding producer autonomy in data governance, ensuring that farmers retain control over the information they generate. This logic drives NGOs like ACED and development partners like FAO to support inclusive platforms, open data principles, and community-led experimentation. However, their initiatives are often project-based, fragmented, and weakly institutionalized, making long-term sustainability a challenge. Furthermore, their priorities may conflict with commercial imperatives or institutional timelines, creating friction in multi-actor settings.

Experimental logic: learning-by-doing and adaptive innovation

These actors serve as “connective tissue” between rigid institutional structures and agile private initiatives. However, the experimental logic often lacks political authority or financial stability, leaving successful pilots with no pathway to scale. As one interviewee put it, “many tools are tested, few are absorbed.”

Enablers and barriers to adoption of digital livestock innovations

Despite growing policy interest and localized experimentation, the adoption of digital tools in livestock systems in Benin remains modest and highly uneven. This section explores the key factors enabling or constraining the diffusion of digital livestock innovations, drawing on institutional analysis, stakeholder narratives, and field-level observations. It highlights three interrelated dimensions: the innovation landscape, the regulatory and institutional environment, and the scaling challenges associated with transitioning from niche experiments to system-wide transformation.

Innovation landscape in the livestock sector

Benin has witnessed the emergence of several digital solutions targeting agriculture sector in general and livestock value chains in particular. To better illustrate the diversity of ongoing digital initiatives in Benin, we compiled an illustrative set of innovations (Table 3). While not exhaustive, the table highlights the relative scarcity of livestock-focused tools compared to the dominance of crop-oriented or cross-sectoral applications, thereby underscoring the marginal attention given to livestock in the country’s digital transformation. The livestock sector is also represented through specific applications dedicated to animal health monitoring, digital identification, and remote management. Solutions such as E-animal identification, GIS for Animal Health, and Souba for remote monitoring of livestock conditions demonstrate a clear integration of digital technologies to support sustainable and efficient animal husbandry.

These innovations are often led by NGOs, startups, or development partners, with limited involvement from public institutions. They provide tangible value in areas such as animal health tracking, disease control, and market access. However, their coverage remains narrow, with adoption largely confined to pilot areas and early adopters. Moreover, few of these tools are interoperable or aligned with national systems, limiting their scalability and institutional integration.

Institutional barriers and regulatory voids

The lack of sector-specific regulations constitutes a major barrier to adoption. As detailed in Section Governance as a foundational challenge in digital agricultural transformation, current policies do not provide guidelines for data protection in zootechnical systems, standards for digital veterinary diagnostics, or protocols for platform certification. This creates uncertainty for both users and developers, discouraging investment and uptake.

Moreover, the institutional environment lacks coherence and incentives for digital tool adoption. There are no subsidy schemes, tax incentives, or inclusion in official livestock support programs to encourage uptake. Livestock producers often bear the full cost of adoption, with no guarantee of technical support or compatibility with public extension systems.

Institutional actors interviewed also noted a mismatch between digital supply and field-level demand. Many tools are developed without user-centered design or participatory testing, resulting in low usability or relevance for small-scale herders. This is compounded by low digital literacy levels among rural producers, particularly among women and elderly livestock keepers.

Niche status and transition challenges

Most digital livestock innovations in Benin remain in “niche regime”—a protected but disconnected space where innovation occurs (Geels, 2002; Smith and Raven, 2012), but without systemic impact. These niches often emerge in donor-funded projects or isolated pilot programs. While they demonstrate technical feasibility, they fail to transition into mainstream agricultural systems due to lack of scaling pathways, policy anchoring, and institutional support. As summarized in Table 4, both enablers and barriers shape the adoption of digital innovations in the livestock sector.

Interviews with institutional actors revealed that the lack of scaling strategies is particularly visible in three domains. The first concerns governance: there is no national steering mechanism to systematically evaluate, coordinate, and support promising tools. The second relates to finance, as developers and farmer organizations face limited access to investment or credit to expand digital infrastructure. The third challenge lies in knowledge diffusion, since extension systems remain weak in disseminating digital tools, particularly in remote or pastoral areas. In most cases, dissemination efforts stop once the donor-funded project that introduced the tool comes to an end, leaving producers without continuity or long-term support.

At the same time, some enabling conditions are beginning to emerge, though they remain fragile. Increasing smartphone penetration in rural areas provides a favorable foundation for digital adoption. In addition, certain municipalities and livestock cooperatives have expressed strong commitments to digital inclusion, offering localized support for innovation. Innovation hubs and international donors are also showing growing interest in promoting livestock-specific solutions. However, these positive drivers remain fragmented and insufficient in the absence of structural reforms in regulation, institutional coordination, and farmer engagement.

Overall, the adoption of digital innovations in Benin’s livestock sector is shaped by the coexistence of promising initiatives and systemic constraints. Several tools have been developed and tested, but their lack of regulatory recognition, institutional support, and integration into user practices continues to limit their scale and impact. Addressing these challenges will require a strategic realignment of digital agriculture governance. This should include the development of livestock-specific digital policy instruments, the introduction of incentive mechanisms such as subsidies, training programs, and bundled services, and the establishment of stronger feedback loops between users and developers. Equally important is the integration of digital tools into public extension and animal health systems to ensure sustainability and large-scale adoption.

Discussion

This study aims to explore how digital agriculture—particularly in the livestock sector—is governed in Benin, focusing on the interplay between institutional frameworks and actor configurations. The findings confirm the emergence of a dynamic but fragmented digital ecosystem, marked by ambitious policy aspirations, diverse stakeholder involvement, and pockets of innovation. However, they also reveal critical gaps in coordination, regulation, and sectoral integration that undermine the effectiveness and scalability of digital tools in livestock production.

Governance as a foundational challenge in digital agricultural transformation

The findings of this study confirm that governance constitutes a foundational constraint in the digital transformation of the agricultural sector in Benin, particularly within the domain of livestock development. While policy frameworks such as the Digital Code and the e-Agriculture Strategy articulate ambitious objectives, they often lack the specificity, operational mechanisms, and intersectoral coordination needed to support the effective implementation of digital technologies in livestock systems. This observation reflects a broader phenomenon described in the literature as institutional decoupling—where formal rules exist, but are not supported by corresponding practices, enforcement capacity, or context-sensitive adaptation (Peters and Pierre, 2016).

Interpreted through the lens of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, this situation highlights critical weaknesses in the rules-in-use that structure interactions among actors within the digital agriculture ecosystem. The absence of clear regulatory guidelines for digital veterinary services, data governance, and platform certification generates institutional uncertainty. This, in turn, limits the capacity of public agencies to manage digital innovation and undermines producers’ trust in available technologies. As observed in other sub-Saharan contexts, the lack of clarity around data ownership and use further fuels reluctance among farmers to adopt digital tools (Jouanjean et al., 2020).

Moreover, the governance system tends to operate with limited engagement from key stakeholders, including livestock producers, farmer organizations, and local service providers. Digital strategies are often developed in top-down fashion, without mechanisms for structured consultation or participatory design. This disconnect leads to policy instruments that fail to align with the actual needs and capabilities of end users. As recent studies underline, such gaps in stakeholder engagement can significantly reduce the relevance, uptake, and impact of digital solutions in agricultural systems (Byrne, 2024; Yuan and Sun, 2024).

In addition to regulatory uncertainty and participation gaps, the limited availability of digital infrastructure and low levels of institutional capacity represent further obstacles to effective governance. Many rural and pastoral zones still lack reliable internet connectivity, constraining the feasibility of deploying mobile-based platforms or cloud-enabled livestock tracking systems (Duc et al., 2024; Gouroubera et al., 2024). At the same time, public institutions often do not have the human or technical resources required to assess, support, or supervise digital innovation in livestock services.

These governance challenges are not unique to Benin. They echo observations made across several African countries, where digital agriculture is promoted rhetorically but constrained by fragmented mandates, siloed operations, and inconsistent political prioritization (Weitzberg et al., 2021). Addressing these structural issues requires more than infrastructure investments or tool development. It calls for a deliberate effort to strengthen the institutional environment by clarifying mandates, aligning legal frameworks with sectoral needs, and embedding inclusive participation in decision-making processes.

The transition to digital agriculture cannot succeed without parallel reforms in governance. Institutional inclusion—ensuring that producers and intermediary actors are involved in shaping digital policies and frameworks—is as important as technological inclusion. Without such institutional realignment, the transformative potential of digital agriculture for productivity, resilience, and equity will remain largely unrealized.

Institutional fragmentation and the limits of innovation ecosystems

A central finding of this study is the fragmented nature of institutional arrangements surrounding digital agriculture in Benin. Although multiple actors are involved—ministries, public agencies, farmer organizations, private developers, NGOs, and donors—the governance landscape is characterized by limited coordination, overlapping mandates, and isolated initiatives. This fragmentation hinders the emergence of a coherent national innovation system capable of supporting the scale-up and sustainability of digital solutions in the livestock sector.

This configuration reflects a broader trend observed across sub-Saharan Africa, where digital agriculture ecosystems tend to develop in fragmented ways due to weak policy coherence and inconsistent institutional leadership (Kitole et al., 2024). In such contexts, innovation often occurs in an environment disconnected from public policy frameworks, resulting in limited impact and poor integration with extension services or rural infrastructure.

In Benin, many promising initiatives—such as mobile veterinary services, traceability platforms, or livestock market apps—remain at the pilot stage, with little prospect of scaling beyond the original intervention area. This condition corresponds to what Geels (2002) describes as a “niche regime”: a protected space where innovation occurs, but lacks the enabling environment to influence the dominant system. Without institutional support, digital tools fail to transition from experimentation to consolidation (Geels, 2002; Grant et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the absence of structured coordination mechanisms leads to inefficient use of resources and unclear leadership in implementation. Stakeholders interviewed during this study emphasized the lack of dialogue between actors and the difficulty in aligning innovations with existing agricultural and veterinary policies. While some coordination exists informally or within specific projects, it is often ad hoc and person-dependent rather than systemic.

These findings reinforce recent calls for the development of multi-actor and multi-level governance platforms to manage digital transformation in agriculture (Cordella and Paletti, 2018; Klerkx and Rose, 2020). Such platforms are needed to align innovation with public objectives, ensure interoperability of tools and databases, and promote accountability in the deployment of digital services.

Rethinking digital inclusion

The debate on digital inclusion in agriculture has traditionally focused on technological access, emphasizing the availability of infrastructure such as mobile phones, internet connectivity, and digital devices (Duc et al., 2024; Gouroubera et al., 2024; Rackwitz et al., 2021; Yuan and Sun, 2024). While these elements are necessary, they are far from sufficient to achieve meaningful transformation in rural agricultural systems. The findings of this study suggest that the real challenge lies not only in connectivity but in what can be called institutional inclusion—the extent to which different actors, particularly producers, are integrated into the governance, design, and deployment of digital innovations.

Institutional inclusion is shaped by asymmetries in digital literacy and organizational capacity. As the findings show, many producers lack the skills to engage with digital technologies meaningfully, while their representative organizations often lack the institutional leverage to influence digital agendas. This dynamic creates a double exclusion: one based on individual competencies, and the other rooted in systemic marginalization within policy frameworks. Similar patterns have been observed in other African countries, where the absence of participatory mechanisms leads to the reproduction of digital divides despite expanding coverage (Van der Burg et al., 2019; Voss et al., 2021).

In addition, the absence of clear data governance structures contributes to mistrust among users. Farmers remain skeptical about who owns, controls, or benefits from the data they generate. According to Wilson (2019) Without robust mechanisms for data protection, transparency, and consent, digital tools risk being perceived not as enablers of empowerment, but as instruments of surveillance or exclusion. The absence of producer-oriented governance standards, particularly in relation to animal data, amplifies this mistrust and limits the willingness to engage with digital platforms.

Limitations and future research

This study contributes to the emerging literature on the governance of digital agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, with a particular focus on the livestock sector—a domain that remains underexplored compared to crop production. One of its main strengths lies in its original focus: by systematically reviewing national legal frameworks, strategic policies, and institutional mandates, combined with qualitative evidence from interviews, the study offers a comprehensive overview of how digital innovation is governed in Benin. This dual approach allowed us to link formal governance arrangements with the lived perspectives of actors, highlighting gaps between policy ambitions and implementation realities. Another strength is the application of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, which provides a structured analytical lens to capture the complexity of actor interactions and governance dynamics in the digital agriculture ecosystem. The study thus lays the groundwork for future policy dialogue and comparative research on institutional governance of digital transformation in livestock systems.

At the same time, the study faces certain limitations. It is exploratory and primarily qualitative, relying on documentary analysis and unstructured interviews. While this approach enabled rich contextual insights, it restricts the generalizability of findings beyond the Beninese case. The number of interviews conducted was modest, limiting the breadth of perspectives, especially from grassroots actors such as smallholder livestock keepers and women producers. In addition, the unstructured nature of interviews, while flexible, makes systematic comparison across respondents more difficult. Finally, the analysis largely emphasized formal policies and institutions, whereas informal governance mechanisms, local power relations, and micro-level adoption practices require further investigation.

Future research could build on this foundation by adopting mixed-method or comparative designs to test the robustness of findings across contexts. Quantitative approaches would help assess the magnitude of governance effects on digital adoption, while cross-country studies would provide insights into institutional variation. More attention should also be given to gendered and generational dynamics of digital adoption, as well as the mediating role of local authorities and community-based organizations. Such research would deepen the understanding of inclusive and effective digital governance in livestock systems.

Conclusion

This study has examined how institutional and governance frameworks shape the development and adoption of digital technologies in Benin’s livestock sector. Despite national efforts to promote digital agriculture, the livestock domain remains marginal in both policy design and implementation. The analysis reveals significant gaps in regulatory frameworks, coordination mechanisms, and stakeholder inclusion.

The findings underscore the need for a shift from fragmented innovation toward an integrated governance model. Institutional misalignment, lack of livestock-specific policies, and weak stakeholder coordination limit the scalability and sustainability of digital tools. Addressing these barriers requires regulatory reforms, the establishment of multi-actor platforms, and the integration of digital services into mainstream agricultural policies and extension systems.

Beyond infrastructure and innovation, digital transformation depends critically on the quality of governance. In livestock systems, where production risks and rural inequalities are particularly acute, inclusive and coherent institutional arrangements are essential. By fostering alignment across actors and policies, Benin can move from isolated experimentation to transformative digital adoption in its livestock sector.

References

• 1

  Akouegnonhou O. Demirbaş N. (2021). Factors affecting the income of farmers participating in traditional and modern livestock markets: case study from Benin republic. Selcuk J. Agric. Food Sci.35 (3), 210–217. 10.15316/sjafs.2021.250

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Bahn R. A. Yehya A. A. K. Zurayk R. (2021). Digitalization for sustainable agri-food systems: potential, status, and risks for the MENA region. Sustainability13 (6), 3223. 10.3390/su13063223

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Bashiru M. Ouedraogo M. Ouedraogo A. Läderach P. (2024). Smart farming technologies for sustainable agriculture: a review of the promotion and adoption strategies by smallholders in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability16 (11), 4817. 10.3390/su16114817

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Boru E. M. Hwang J. Ahmad A. Y. (2025). Governance and institutional frameworks in Ethiopian integrated agro-industrial parks: enhancing innovation ecosystems and multi stakeholder coordination for global market competitiveness. Economies13 (3), 79. 10.3390/economies13030079

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Byrne A. (2024). Navigating the digital evolution: Uncovering governance challenges and strategies for successful transformation. EDPACS69 (3), 40–46. 10.1080/07366981.2024.2325010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Cordella A. Paletti A. (2018). ICTs and value creation in public sector: manufacturing logic vs service logic. Editors ChunS. A.AdamN. R.NoveckB.23, 125–141.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Cui L. Wang W. (2023). Factors affecting the adoption of digital technology by farmers in China: a systematic literature review. Sustainability15 (20), 14824. 10.3390/su152014824

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Duc N. M. Nhuan N. H. Huong T. T. T. Hai N. M. Vien T. D. (2024). Revolutionising agriculture and rural economy through digital transformation: bridging theory with practice. Ministry Sci. Technol. Vietnam66 (2), 20–29. 10.31276/vmostjossh.2024.0022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ECOWAS Commission (2022). Note thématique de réflexion n°1: quelles perspectives d’évolutions des contributions des systèmes d’élevage mobiles à l’économie régionale et aux chaînes de valeur de l’élevage en Afrique de l’Ouest. ECOWAS Comm. Available online at: https://www.inter-reseaux.org/wp-content/uploads/Note-thematique-1-Perspectives-evolution-contributions-systemes-delevage-mobiles-FR-1-1.pdf (Accessed August 30, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Finger R. (2023). Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.50 (4), 1277–1309. 10.1093/erae/jbad021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Fragomeli R. Annunziata A. Punzo G. (2024). Promoting the transition towards agriculture 4.0: a systematic literature review on drivers and barriers. Sustainability16 (6), 2425. 10.3390/su16062425

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Garske B. Bau A. Ekardt F. (2021). Digitalization and AI in European agriculture: a strategy for achieving climate and biodiversity targets?Sustainability13 (9), 4652. 10.3390/su13094652

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Geels F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. policy. 31 (8–9), 1257–1274. 10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Gouroubera M. W. Adechian S. A. Segnon A. C. Moumouni-Moussa I. Zougmoré R. B. (2025). Drivers and impacts of Mobile phone-mediated scaling of agricultural technologies: a meta-analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.8, 1514546. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1514546

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Grant K. Dombrowski Q. Ranaweera K. Rodriguez-Arenas O. Sinclair S. Rockwell G. (2020). Absorbing DiRT: tool directories in the digital age. Digit. Studies/Le Champ. numérique10 (1), 4. 10.16995/dscn.325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Jarial S. Sachan S. (2021). Digital agriculture through extension advisory services-is it gender-responsive? A review. Int. J. Agric. Ext.9 (3), 559–566. 10.33687/ijae.009.03.3687

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Jouanjean M.-A. Casalini F. Wiseman L. Gray E. (2020). Issues around data governance in the digital transformation of agriculture: the farmers’ perspective. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 146. OECD Publishing. 10.1787/53ecf2ab-en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Kitole F. A. Mkuna E. Sesabo J. K. (2024). “Digitalization and agricultural transformation in developing countries: empirical evidence from Tanzania agriculture sector,” in Smart agricultural technology 7 (Elsevier).

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Klerkx L. Rose D. (2020). Dealing with the game-changing technologies of agriculture 4.0: how do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways?Glob. Food Secur.24, 100347. 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Klerkx L. Jakku E. Labarthe P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: new contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci.90–91, 1, 16. 10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Klychova G. Zakirova A. Yusupova A. Klychova A. Gallyamov E. (2022). Application of digital technologies to reduce the carbon footprint in livestock. Vestnik Kazan State Agrar. Univ.17 (1), 122–128. 10.12737/2073-0462-2022-122-128

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Kok K. P. W. Klerkx L. (2023). Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst.211, 103747. 10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103747

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Kumar P. Abubakar A. A. Verma A. K. Umaraw P. Adewale Ahmed M. Mehta N. et al (2023). New insights in improving sustainability in meat production: Opportunities and challenges. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.63 (33), 11830–11858. 10.1080/10408398.2022.2096562

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Leong W. Y. Leong Y. Z. Leong W. S. (2024). “Eco-efficient poultry farms: leveraging IoT for sustainable production,” in 2024 9th international conference on applying new technology in green buildings (ATiGB), 432–437. Available online at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10717712 (Accessed June 4, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Lima E. Hopkins T. Gurney E. Shortall O. Lovatt F. Davies P. et al (2018). Drivers for precision livestock technology adoption: a study of factors associated with adoption of electronic identification technology by commercial sheep farmers in England and Wales. PLOS ONE13 (1), e0190489. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190489

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Marshall A. Turner K. Richards C. Foth M. Dezuanni M. (2022). Critical factors of digital AgTech adoption on Australian farms: From digital to data divide. Inf. Commun. and Soc.25 (6), 868–886. 10.1080/1369118x.2022.2056712

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Montes N. Osman N. Sierra C. (2022). A computational model of Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework. Artif. Intell.311, 103756. 10.1016/j.artint.2022.103756

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Ohashi T. Saijo M. Suzuki K. Arafuka S. (2024). From conservatism to innovation: the sequential and iterative process of smart livestock technology adoption in Japanese small-farm systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change208, 123692. 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123692

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Ostrom E. (2005). Self-governance and forest resources. Terracotta reader: A market approach to the environment, 12. https://books.google.bj/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=VI4LBMAATv8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA131&dq=Elinor+Ostrom+(2005)&ots=APUwlFIMWQ&sig=4yTzob8ZNtOFothnVcb-a304g80&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Elinor%20Ostrom%20(2005)&f=false

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Ostrom E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. New jersey, United states: Princeton university press. Available online at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=LbeJaji_AfEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=%E2%80%A2%09Ostrom,+E.+(2005).+Understanding+Institutional+Diversity.+Princeton+University+Press.&ots=ky5E-Unq-P&sig=l6C7nVlV9Ycz7FmaAz8xCQJUy8U (Accessed May 31, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Ostrom E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud. J.39 (1), 7–27. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Peters B. G. Pierre J. (2016). Comparative governance: rediscovering the functional dimension of governing. Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Rackwitz M. Hustedt T. Hammerschmid G. (2021). Digital transformation: from hierarchy to network-based collaboration? The case of the German “Online Access Act”. Mod. staat – Z. für Publicolicy,echt Manag.14 (1–2021), 101–120. 10.3224/dms.v14i1.05

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Raheem N. (2014). Using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework to analyze the acequias of El Río de las Gallinas, New Mexico. Soc. Sci. J.51 (3), 447–454. 10.1016/j.soscij.2014.02.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Rotz S. Duncan E. Small M. Botschner J. Dara R. Mosby I. et al (2019). The politics of digital agricultural technologies: a preliminary review. Sociol. Rural.59 (2), 203–229. 10.1111/soru.12233

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Smith A. Raven R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res. Policy41 (6), 1025–1036. 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Téno G. Cadilhon J.-J. (2017). Capturing the impacts of agricultural innovation platforms: an empirical evaluation of village crop-livestock development platforms in Burkina Faso. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev.29 (9). Available online at: https://lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd29/9/jo.c29169.html.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Van der Burg S. Bogaardt M.-J. Wolfert S. (2019). Ethics of smart farming: current questions and directions for responsible innovation towards the future. NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci.90. 10.1016/j.njas.2019.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Voss R. C. Donovan J. Rutsaert P. Cairns J. E. (2021). Gender inclusivity through maize breeding in Africa: a review of the issues and options for future engagement. Outlook Agric.50 (4), 392–405. 10.1177/00307270211058208

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Wang Z. Zhang J. He Y. Liu H. (2024). A study on the potential of digital economy in reducing agricultural carbon emissions. Heliyon10 (11), e31941. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31941

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Weitzberg K. Cheesman M. Martin A. Schoemaker E. (2021). Between surveillance and recognition: rethinking digital identity in aid. Big Data and Soc.8 (1), 20539517211006744. 10.1177/20539517211006744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Wilson N. J. (2019). “seeing water like a state?”: indigenous water governance through Yukon first nation self-government agreements. Geoforum104, 101–113. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Yuan Y. Sun Y. (2024). Practices, challenges, and future of digital transformation in smallholder agriculture: insights from a literature review. Agriculture14 (12), 2193. 10.3390/agriculture14122193

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar