Conciliation or a confrontation of agricultural visions? A characterisation of the networks and key actors for sustainable agrifood transformations in the Bauges

In French mountain territories, origin-linked quality schemes have been widely used to address competition from more productive regions, but such schemes have tended to specialise a territory's agriculture around specific products. Today, these territories are marked by the arrival of "left-returned" and new residents, who develop alternative production methods and grassroot initiatives based on agroecological principles and food production relocation. The different groups within the territories hold different visions of what should be agriculture and may confront each other. Sustainable agrifood transformations need to account for the diversity of visions among the variety of actors to enrich transition pathways. The aim of this article is to analyse relationships among a diversity of agrifood actors who have different visions of agriculture in a territory in order to characterise the structure of their relationships and the key actors. More specifically, it seeks, first, to analyse whether actors sharing the same characteristics interact more or not, and whether individual attributes stimulate or constrain relations among the diverse range of actors; and second, to characterise the key actors (i.e. prestigious and brokers) and their roles. The study was conducted in a French alpine territory specialising in extensive dairy cattle breeding to produce protected designation of origin (PDO) cheese. We use mixed methods, combining a social network analysis (regression models, and homophily and centrality indicators) with semi-structured interviews to analyse the discussion network of the diverse actors involved in agriculture and food in the Bauges (including farmers, elected officials, processors, distributors, members of civil society, and employees of agricultural and local development institutions). The analysis showed that there is no homophily within the actor typologies, and that relations were concentrated within the territory. Some actors were more important for developing ties, especially the employees of agricultural and local development institutions, who were more solicitated by others. However, the results revealed homophily among non-native actors, although they are driving force in the development of ties, demonstrating both their ability to forge links and relational barriers with natives. After that, the most influential broker actor was the park employee in charge of agriculture, who holds a pluralist vision and has a central role in gathering different actors together and bringing them into dialogue. The most prestigious actors were the park employee, a civil society actor, and four farmers. These actors all fulfil three main functions: to guide practices and visions within their group as key actors often hold a clear-cut vision, to bind heterogeneous groups together (although this does not prevent tensions and conflict with these actors), and to link institutional levels, often by virtue of being heads of networks and municipal councillors. However, the methodology did not allow the integration of more isolated actors, especially dairy cattle breeders, who should be included more deeply in further research. To better understand the dynamics of sustainable agrifood transformations, the relational approach enables analysis of the patterns of relationships between multiple actors with different agricultural visions, and to characterise the key actors and their roles. From the perspective of accompanying agrifood transformations, it is helpful to understand the relational structures between the actors in order to avoid the possible conflicts that could arise in such research. Moreover, it is useful to identify and mobilise key actors in order to facilitate researchers' entry into a territory and increase participation.