Barriers and Challenges Faced in the Deployment of Principles of the Circular Bioeconomy: Awareness, Knowledge and Practices Based on the Example of Polish Agriculture

Abstract

The circular bioeconomy is the key tool for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Changes in agricultural production are crucial to its development. Farmers are not only responsible for biomass production but also account for approximately 13% of GHG emissions in the EU. This article addresses the following questions: (Q1) To what extent are farmers implementing the values and practices of the circular bioeconomy? (Q2) Are agricultural advisors promoting these values and practices? (Q3) What are the potential barriers preventing farmers from transitioning to a circular bioeconomy? The study was conducted among two groups. A CATI questionnaire survey was conducted with farmers, and in-depth interviews with agricultural advisors. Most farmers do not apply circular bioeconomy principles in their production practices. However, cluster analysis revealed variation: in addition to the disinterested mainstream group, a cluster of relatively affluent farmers was identified as more engaged in circular practices. The analysis of agricultural advisors’ attitudes revealed an insufficient level of engagement in promoting circular bioeconomy practices. It also indicated significant variation in the advisors’ values and attitudes, which may affect the type and quality of information they pass on to farmers. The study identified several barriers to the implementation of circular bioeconomy solutions, stemming from both farmers’ attitudes and institutional conditions.

1. Introduction

The global economy has to put itself on a path of evolution towards a low emissions-based model, using, amongst other things, the tools and principles of the circular economy and the bioeconomy to achieve this. A sustainable, circular bioeconomy is key to making the move away from fossil fuels and meeting the most democratic of needs, ending hunger. It can be understood as a concept based on five cornerstones, the first of which is agriculture and forestry, followed by food, bioenergy, biotechnology, and green chemistry [1]. The bioresource-based economy will, however, only fulfil its role when these resources are produced in a sustainable manner. Modern agriculture is contributing significantly to the transgression of further planetary boundaries in areas of emissions with an impact on climate issues [2,3,4], soil exploitation, biogeochemical nitrogen and phosphate cycles [5,6,7], and biodiversity loss [8,9]. However, the implementation of sustainable agroecological systems, the elimination of waste and its transformation into fully-fledged industrial goods, as well as the adoption of cascading and closing the loop, are making it possible to mitigate the negative environmental impacts of agriculture [10,11], while also improving the efficiency of agricultural activity [12]. The European Bioeconomy Strategy (EBS) (2012/2018) is based on this fact. From the point of view of agricultural production, the principles of a circular bioeconomy include, among others, the use of agricultural biomass residues for the production of compost, biogas, or bio-based products [13]. Through the context of agricultural biomass, the EBS is linked to the Common Agricultural Policy, which creates regulations supporting the production and use of non-food biomass from agricultural activities [14]. Crop residues constitute a significant biomass stream that can be mobilized for energy use (and production of innovative materials), thus reducing dependence on fossil fuels [15,16]. Biogas production through anaerobic digestion plays a dual role in waste management and renewable energy generation, closely aligned with the EU’s goals of mitigating climate change and supporting sustainable resource management [17]. The bioeconomy strategy is also linked to the European Green Deal, specifically the Farm to Fork strategy, and specifically recommends sustainable practices, including closing nutrient cycles, e.g., through the use of organic fertilizers and catch crops, limiting the use of chemical plant protection products through biological and integrated protection methods or the use of regenerative agriculture practices, e.g., no-till farming, agroforestry, or crop rotation. From the EU perspective, EBS should be implemented community-wide. This is why additional institutional support is necessary. In the European Union, one institution designed to help farmers with compliance with EU regulations concerning environmental standards and promote and disseminate the community strategy is the farm advisory system. The advisory system is an integral part of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in the EU. The purpose of this system is to support interaction and communication between various entities in the agricultural sector, promoting innovation and knowledge sharing. Because farmers’ attitudes and values can be a key obstacle or a driver to the implementation of innovative business models, including the circular bioeconomy, informed, aware support from farm advisors can be crucial to its success among farmers.

The aim of this article is to provide answers to the following questions:

• (Q1) Are farmers implementing values and practices of the circular bioeconomy?
• (Q2) Are farm advisors promoting these values and practices to farmers?
• (Q3) What are the potential barriers preventing farmers from transitioning to the circular bioeconomy?

2. What Does Circular Bioeconomy Mean in Agricultural Production?

Mak et al. [18] claim that key principles of the circular bioeconomy in agriculture include sustainable consumption and production, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing the multi-functionality of products, and optimizing the allocation of resources. Gatto and Re [19] emphasize the importance of reduced environmental pressure, increasing efficiency in the consumption of resources and use of renewable raw materials, while Salvador et al. consider innovation, taking the customer perspective into account, management of logistics, value creation, technological development, and resilient value chains to be key principles of the circular bioeconomy [20]. Other authors also define general pillars and values on which the circular bioeconomy is based, such as safeguarding and regenerating the health of ecosystems, avoiding non-essential products, prioritizing biomass streams for basic human needs, utilizing and recycling by-products, and using renewable energy [21]. In the context of the above-mentioned criteria, the circular bioeconomy in agriculture manifests itself in the combination of two seemingly contradictory trends: a return to traditional farming and innovation. Traditional farming was, by nature, circular, employing practices such as crop rotation, application of manure, and integrated agricultural systems for efficient resource use. Traditional agricultural practices include mixed cropping, crop rotation, agroforestry, and the use of local varieties and resources, with interactions between organisms helping to ensure environmental sustainability and secure food production [22,23]. A return to this type of practice in highly developed countries is an alternative to industrialized agriculture, focusing on resilient cultivation systems, social relations, and increasing food security and biodiversity [24]. Along with a traditional approach, other circular bioeconomy practices include innovations, the purpose of which is to increase the efficiency of resource use, biotechnological progress, and a zero-waste policy, leading to the development of biorefineries transforming biomass treated as waste into fully-fledged products [25].

This study focuses on selected phenomena that are integral to the circular bioeconomy. They are: (1) Composting practices and use of one’s own compost in crop production, which, when done properly, reduce nitrogen losses [26] and limit emissions from agriculture [27,28]; (2) Practices related to the use of one’s own seed/planting material. Despite the fact that the majority of studies point to the superior quality of certified seed material [29,30], the decision was taken to select this element, as own seed material can be understood as natural capital [31], which is used in organic farming and conservation practices protecting biodiversity and local varieties [32]; (3) Use of agroecological systems [21], understood as a holistic approach to harmonize natural methods and ecosystem services by increasing farm resilience and diversity. Examples of actions include a selection of appropriate breeds and varieties of crops, an adaptation of soil management methods and crop diversification strategies, integration in value chains, and the adoption of business models, taking local practices into consideration, and providing greater market opportunities for farmers and consumers. Examples of farming practices implementing agroecological principles are organic farming, agroforestry, and mixed farming (“Agroecology: Transitioning toward sustainable, climate and ecosystem-friendly farming and food systems”); (4) Application of water recovery, retention or saving systems in agriculture [33,34]; (5) Actions to introduce alternatives to single-use plastic materials used in production, packaging and transport in agriculture. Waste reduction and pollution control are manifestations of circular behaviors in agriculture [35], and plastic pollution in agriculture is a threat to food security, the ecosystem, and the environment [36]; (6) and Practices related to use of biomass from by-product streams for energy purposes and collaboration with biogas plants and other agricultural producers for collective energy production. One type of circular business model used in agriculture involves biogas plants that create value from create value from agricultural waste and by-products by using biomass to produce higher added-value products before exploiting it as an energy source [37].

The practices mentioned above do not exhaust the possibilities of the circular bioeconomy, but are actions which can be taken relatively easily, make economic sense, and can be disseminated to farmers, enabling them to achieve the goals of the circular bioeconomy through their implementation.

A return to traditional practices accompanied by the implementation of innovative processes, products, and behaviors may be a major challenge for farmers as a social group. Numerous studies indicate that farmers in Europe have more conservative values than other social groups [38]. A lack of trust and an attitude of suspicion [39], as well as a low level of social capital, especially in former satellite countries of the USSR [40], may be a serious barrier to the development of the circular bioeconomy. It is difficult to implement innovations with farmers due to socio-economic barriers, technical and financial challenges, lack of knowledge and skills, and differences in the perceived usefulness of technology [41,42,43].

3. Role of the Farm Advisor in Building Farmer Awareness

In Kujawiński’s methodical dictionary [44], the farm advisory system in Polish literature is defined as a type of agricultural education, consisting of self-motivating and intentional cooperation of the farmer in partnership with the farm advisor, with the aim of solving the farmer’s professional problems and enabling him to take effective actions in agricultural practice. In the EU, agricultural advice is provided based on the Farm Advisory System (FAS) developed in 2007. The basic aim of the FAS is to help farmers to better understand and meet the EU rules for the environment, public and animal health, animal welfare, and good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) (“Farm Advisory System”). In the EU countries, there are significant differences to be observed in the forms of the FAS (ranging from public to commercial advice), and, in certain countries, the professional status of farm advisors is recognized and has its own specific frameworks. In Poland, based on the “National standards of professional qualifications for the profession of farm advisor” [“Krajowe Standardy Kwalifikacji Zawodowych dla zawodu doradca rolniczy”] (profession code: 213201), it is defined as, amongst other things, carrying out tasks of advisors such as: providing assistance with the resolution of problems concerning agricultural production, inspiring and supporting the growth of farms under market conditions, and working together with institutions and organizations in the agricultural sphere to solve farmers’ professional and social problems [45]. In the farm advisory system in Poland, advisors offer their help in every voivodeship, every powiat, and often also fill in gaps at the municipal level, reaching out to farmers by taking proactive action (e.g., farm visits).

The tasks of the farm advisor are carried out by performing four formal functions: advice, education, information, and dissemination. The advisory function manifests itself in the process of solving the farmer’s individual problems. The educational function takes the form of offers of courses, training, and workshops for farmers. The last two functions, namely information and dissemination, to a large extent, use the mass media and new ICT tools to enable information to reach the widest group of recipients possible, as part of which innovations are necessary in the process of diffusion [46].

Despite the application of new communications tools to perform the above-mentioned functions, individual advice—directly applied in the process of solving farmers’ individual problems—still remains of greatest importance, with results of studies showing over 82% of activities to be carried out via that form of communication [47]. For several years now, farm advisors in the EU have also received support within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, enabling them to become more competent and carry out their tasks more effectively, thus contributing to the achievement of the goals of the CAP and FAS. However, an analysis of the financial effectiveness of support for knowledge transfer and advisory services from 2014–2022 CAP indicates that these activities are insufficiently effective [48]. In addition to the formal functions mentioned above, advisors act as intermediaries between stakeholders, supporting the creation of knowledge networks [49,50].

The advisors also play other roles and functions (informal), resulting from their direct contacts with farmers, grounded in the level of trust. The farm advisor is, in general, a person close to the farmer. The question of credibility of and trust in farm advisors (both from private firms and public entities), and the impact of these factors on the effectiveness of advisory services, has also been the subject of analysis and discussion in recent years [51,52]. An expert assessment by M. Gorman et al. [52] indicates credibility and trust in advisors to be factors that have an important influence on improvement in the effectiveness of advisory, educational, information, and dissemination activities carried out by farm advisors. Ingram makes similar claims [53]. Based on her research, she concluded that advisor-farmer encounters that are underpinned by trust, credibility, empathy, and consultation can provide a more effective context for knowledge exchange—potentially facilitating farmers’ transformation to more sustainable best management practices. Research by Sutherland et al. [51] also confirms that, on issues of environmental protection, biodiversity, and sustainable and pro-ecological practices, farmers trust farm advisors more than other pressure groups, politicians, or consultancy firms from the private sector.

Taking into account the role of formal institutions, appropriate agricultural policies, and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the advisors, it is precisely within the framework of the FAS that the dissemination of the principles of the circular bioeconomy is possible. The participation of advisory entities and institutions and the direct commitment of the farm advisors themselves, working together with farmers, is key. With regard to the achievement of sustainable development goals, including circularity strategy, the question arises as to whether the activity of advisors is conducive to building awareness among farmers and to the implementation of that strategy.

4. Materials and Methods

The research was conducted in 2024 in two phases (P1 and P2) to obtain answers to the three research questions posed in the introduction. The scope of the questions in the survey refers to problems related to the EBS—closing the biomass cycle by transforming it into fertilizer or energy raw material, production in sustainable agro-ecosystems, but also taking into account the principles of circularity in the context of water recovery and the use of renewable materials in agricultural production and packaging, which refer to the circularity strategy. The aim of the first phase (P1) of the research was to obtain information about the behaviors of farmers, which are integral to the model of the circular bioeconomy, and potential obstacles to the implementation of those behaviors. The sampling was based on a quota, but the reluctance of some respondents to provide an answer turned out to be a limitation, especially in the group with a lower level of education. One hundred telephone interviews were conducted with farmers with different demographic characteristics (Figure A1 in Appendix A). The interview consisted of 10 metric questions (Figure 1), the answers to which were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The data obtained was subjected to correlation tests: Spearman’s rho test, determining the strength of the relationship between two variables, and the Mann-Whitney U-Test, to assess whether demographic characteristics are correlated with circular behaviors and opinions about the bioeconomy, and whether opinions about the bioeconomy are correlated with farmers’ declared activities. The results obtained were then analyzed using the Fuzzy C-Means clustering method. This method may be used to cluster respondents according to the answers they gave [54,55]. The chosen Fuzzy C-Means method allows individuals to belong, to varying degrees, to multiple clusters, which is beneficial in studies of non-binary and complex attitudes [56], providing a more nuanced understanding of attitudes [57]. Respondents’ answers were clustered using JASP 0.18.3 computer software [58]. The number of groups was determined using the Elbow method [59], and the homogeneity of groups was assessed based on the t-SNE (t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding) plot obtained in the study [60]. The procedure used took the following training parameters into account: the maximum number of iterations was set to 7, the fuzziness parameter was 2, and the number of clusters was optimized based on the BIC (Bayesian Information Criteria).

In phase 2 (P2), 38 in-depth interviews were conducted with farm advisors who act as a link between farmers and the broader institutional environment in agriculture (for the Interview guide, see Figure A2 in Appendix A). The sample selection was purposive. Interview requests were sent to advisors working in Farm Advisory Centers (public entities) specializing in environmental programs and innovation. Interviews were conducted by telephone and during online meetings. The aim of the interviews was not only to determine how the concept of the circular bioeconomy is understood by farm advisors and their commitment to promoting its goals, but also to assess the farming community from the point of view of advisors in the context of the attitudes and values of farmers observed by them in relation to the implementation of the circular bioeconomy. The purpose of this phase of the research was also to provide answers to the question of potential obstacles to the implementation of the goals of the circular bioeconomy.

5. Results

5.1. Survey Results (P1)

The aim of the survey was to determine the degree to which farmers take actions on their farms which are integral to the model of the circular bioeconomy, taking account of the fact that they may not be familiar with or correctly interpret the term “circular bioeconomy”, while, at the same time, properly applying its principles. A graphical summary of the responses provided is shown in Figure 1.

Declared behaviors, which are integral to circular bioeconomy practices, are relatively rare (questions 1–7): 34% of respondents use composting, 27% use their own seed/planting material, 21% employ agroecological systems, 22% use water recovery techniques, 18% are looking for alternatives to single-use packaging and plastic products used in agricultural production, and 3% use biomass to produce energy, but 17% cooperate or would like to cooperate with a biogas plant. At the same time, nearly 87% of respondents declare that they are familiar with and understand the concept of the “bioeconomy”, and 62% have positive associations with the term. Farmers note that the topic of the bioeconomy is starting to appear more frequently in the media and in their surrounding environment (56%). The answers of the majority of respondents to questions 1 and 3 to 7 were characterized by a total lack of declared behaviors (shown in red) or their declaration to a very limited degree (orange). Interestingly, questions 8 to 10 concerning declarative knowledge and perception of the bioeconomy indicate that the majority of respondents know what it is and do not have negative associations with it. The next step was to determine whether there are any relationships between declared knowledge, perception, and behaviors (

Table 1. Correlations between perception of the bioeconomy and behaviors, which are integral to the circular bioeconomy.

Spearman’s Rho Coefficient	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7
Q8	rs = 0.02589, p = 0.79816 n.s.	rs = 0.14304, p = 0.15568 n.s.	rs = 0.21208, p = 0.03415	rs = 0.10182, p = 0.31345 n.s.	rs = 0.1414, p = 0.16054 n.s.	rs = 0.01279, p = 0.8995 n.s.	rs = −0.04652, p = 0.64579 n.s.
Q9	rs = 0.07, p = 0.473 n.s.	rs = 0.1, p = 0.304 n.s.	rs = 0.08, p = 0.405 n.s.	rs = 0.04, p = 0.673 n.s.	rs = 0.06, p = 0.521 n.s.	rs = 0.05, p = 0.645 n.s.	rs = 0.11, p = 0.294 n.s.
Q10	rs = 0.09065, p = 0.36974 n.s.	rs = 0.07304, p = 0.4702 n.s.	rs = 0.08292, p = 0.41213 n.s.	rs = 0.13972, p = 0.16561 n.s.	rs = 0.18825, p = 0.06071 n.s.	rs = 0.14164, p = 0.1598 n.s.	rs = 0.11867, p = 0.23963 n.s.

Values indicating the existence of interdependencies are bolded.

).

Declared knowledge of and sympathetic attitudes to the bioeconomy do not translate into hardly any action at all, which may mean that farmers do not understand what the bioeconomy really is or that they are experiencing a deep dissonance between awareness and adopted behaviors. Only one correlation between declared actions and knowledge was observed in the case of question 3: “My farm employs agroecological systems which use natural ecological processes for the purposes of pest control, guaranteeing soil fertility and minimizing the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides”. A higher level of declared knowledge is correlated exclusively with more frequent use of agroecological systems. From this, it can be assumed that farmers understand the concept of the bioeconomy, associating it with the principles of organic production and similar systems. The long-standing presence of support for organic production and the promotion of this approach may also explain this relationship. Next, the answers given by respondents and their demographic variables were subjected to Spearman’s rho test (

Table 2. Spearman’s rho coefficient: correlations between behavior and perception of the bioeconomy and demographic variables.

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10
Age	rs = 0.07838, p = 0.43825 n.s.	rs = 0.10639, p = 0.29212 n.s.	rs = 0.1261, p = 0.21124 n.s.	rs = −0.05864, p = 0.56225 n.s.	rs = −0.10189, p = 0.3131 n.s.	rs = 0.0501, p = 0.62056 n.s.	rs = −0.13081, p = 0.19456 n.s.	rs = 0.03952, p = 0.69629 n.s.	rs = 0.23604, p = 0.01807	rs = 0.00445, p = 0.96498 n.s.
Education	rs = −0.04078, p = 0.68704 n.s.	rs = −0.00214, p = 0.98318 n.s.	rs = 0.03563, p = 0.72489 n.s.	rs = −0.02888, p = 0.77545 n.s.	rs = −0.01434, p = 0.88738 n.s.	rs = −0.1559, p = 0.12142 n.s.	rs = −0.24337, p = 0.01469	rs = 0.21754, p = 0.0297	rs = −0.00581, p = 0.95428 n.s.	rs = 0.18975, p = 0.05864 n.s.
Income per person in household (net)	rs = −0.03984, p = 0.69394 n.s.	rs = 0.03647, p = 0.71866 n.s.	rs = −0.08246, p = 0.4147 n.s.	rs = 0.01738, p = 0.86373 n.s.	rs = −0.03744, p = 0.71155 n.s.	rs = 0.14393, p = 0.15311 n.s.	rs = −0.14583, p = 0.14769 n.s.	rs = 0.24204, p = 0.01526	rs = −0.01968, p = 0.84589 n.s.	rs = 0.20124, p = 0.04468
Farm size	rs = 0.14284, p = 0.15626 n.s.	rs = 0.12711, p = 0.20759 n.s.	rs = 0.20038, p = 0.04561	rs = 0.06848, p = 0.49842 n.s.	rs = 0.01827, p = 0.85683 n.s.	rs = −0.0384, p = 0.70448 n.s.	rs = 0.25011, p = 0.01208	rs = 0.19331, p = 0.05398 n.s.	rs = 0.08151, p = 0.42011 n.s.	rs = 0.14366, p = 0.15389 n.s.

).

Demographic variables do not satisfactorily explain attitudes to and opinions about the circular bioeconomy. The age of respondents, education, and income per person showed only a few weak correlations (in bold in Table 2). Farm size (in ha) proved to be correlated with better water management and a stronger tendency and readiness to cooperate with biogas plants. Dependence on the remaining demographic characteristics, gender and type of production, as presented in

Table 3. Mann-Whitney coefficient: behavior and perception of the bioeconomy depending on gender, and Kruskal-Wallis coefficient: behavior and perception of the bioeconomy depending on type of production.

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10
Gender	z = −0.44, p = 0.660 n.s.	z = −4.79026 p < 0.00001 p < 0.05	z = −5.18365 p = <0.00001 p < 0.05.	z = −2.69139 p = 0.00714 p < 0.05	z = −1.42083 p = 0.1556 n.s.	z = 6.5153 p < 0.00001 p < 0.05	z = 0.45814 p = 0.64552 n.s.	z = −11 p < 0.00001 p < 0.05	z = −9.88717 p < 0.00001 p < 0.05	z = −10.9134 p < 0.00001 p < 0.05
Type of production	H(2, N = 100) = 20.34, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.05	H(2, N = 100) = 8.9623, p = 0.01132, p < 0.05	H(2, N = 100) = 4.5306, p = 0.1038 n.s.	H(2, N = 100) = 7.228, p = 0.02694, p < 0.05	H(2, N = 100) = 0.1495, p = 0.928 n.s.	H(2, N = 100) = 1.1678, p = 0.55771 n.s.	H(2, N = 100) = 2.7212, p = 0.25651 n.s.	H(2, N = 100) = 0.0838, p = 0.95897 n.s.	H(2, N = 100) = 0.857, p = 0.65148 n.s.	H(2, N = 100) = 1.7828, p = 0.41008
Dunn’s test *	x1–x2 x1–x3	x1–x2 x2–x3		x1–x2

* Post-Hoc Dunn’s test using a Bonferroni corrected alpha.

, was examined using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Gender and type of production proved to be the characteristics that strongly differentiated the population surveyed. There were statistically significant differences in the answers given by men and women (no other gender options were marked) to 7 out of the 10 questions. Women more frequently agreed with the statements in the questionnaire, except in one case, where more men were in agreement; that statement related to bioenergy production. Type of production (crop, animal, mixed) also proved to differentiate answers to questions about composting, use of own seed/planting materials, and approach to water. The above analysis shows a low level of implementation of circular behaviors, along with a relatively high level of assessment of one’s own knowledge and perception of the bioeconomy. An analysis of the correlation of respondents’ answers in the context of their demographic characteristics gives a limited picture of behaviors and attitudes in the surveyed population. The Fuzzy C-Means algorithm revealed there to be 6 significantly differentiated groups. Figure 2 presents a plot of t-SNE clusters for this survey.

Answers to the survey questions and to the metric questions, except for gender and type of production, where averages cannot be determined, were taken into account in the clustering. Six groupings were obtained (

Table 4. Characteristic of groups of respondents picked out using the Fuzzy C-Means clustering method (means of respondents’ answers to questions).

	M2	M3	M4	M6	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10
Gr. 1: Question marks	2.3	3.3	3.4	5.9	4.1	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.7	1.0	3.4	4.6	2.9	3.3
Gr. 2: Marginalized	4.3	3.3	1.6	3.4	4.5	3.6	3.1	3.0	2.4	1.0	1.1	4.0	3.0	3.6
Gr. 3: Struggling	3.1	3.1	2.4	5.2	1.0	2.6	3.8	3.4	3.1	1.1	2.6	4.1	3.0	3.5
Gr. 4: Open to innovation	2.8	3.4	4.1	6.0	3.2	3.9	3.3	2.6	3.2	1.7	3.6	4.8	4.0	4.7
Gr. 5: Silent majority of smaller producers	3.2	3.4	3.1	4.0	1.4	2.5	2.0	1.9	1.7	1.3	1.4	4.2	3.5	3.5
Gr. 6: Silent majority of bigger producers	3.4	3.2	2.7	5.8	4.3	2.5	2.9	2.3	1.9	1.5	1.8	4.1	3.7	3.7

M2: age, M3: education, M4: income per capita, M6: farm size, metric data, Q1–Q10: survey questions.

) with a significant level of differentiation. The size of the clusters was as follows: group 1–7 observations; group 2–8 observations; group 3–17 observations; group 4–10 observations; group 5–39 observations; group 6–19 observations.

None of the groups is characterized by a clearly coherent approach to achieving the goals of the circular bioeconomy, and these goals have not been fully achieved in any of the groups. They do, however, have some characteristic features. The group that is closest to the idea of the circular bioeconomy is group 4, which can be referred to as “Open to innovation”. Declared actions, here, go together with the highest declared level of knowledge and openness, as well as a readiness to implement the goals of the bioeconomy. Farmers in this group are relatively young (30–49 years of age), educated to at least secondary school level, have above-average levels of income, and have the largest farms (over 20 ha in size). This group is the one that shows the most promise in relation to the implementation of non-agricultural goals of the circular bioeconomy. It is characterized by an above-average level of composting (mean: 3.2) and a high level of use of own seed/planting material (mean: 3.9), which may be related to an above-average frequency of use of agroecological systems (mean: 3.3). Those in this group used water systems quite rarely (mean: 2.6) and was most frequently looking for alternatives to plastics and single-use packaging for agricultural products (mean: 3.3). The highest level of use of own waste from biomass for energy production was also recorded in this group, though it is in any case at a very low level (mean: 1.7). Another positive point is the relatively high readiness to cooperate with a biogas plant and/or other recipient of biological waste and biological raw materials produced for non-food purposes (mean: 3.6). Declared knowledge of the bioeconomy was the highest in group 4 (mean: 4.8), as was a positive attitude towards it (mean: 4.7), and, here, increased interest in it in the farming community was also widely noted (mean: 4.0). However, only 10% of individuals from the survey sample fall into this group. Group 3, referred to as the “struggling” group, may prove to be of interest from the point of view of the move towards organic and sustainable agriculture. In this group, the use of agroecological systems and water-saving systems is relatively widespread. This may be a consequence of the poor financial situation of this group of farmers, coupled with farms that are relatively large in size. Potentially, with proper guidance from farm advisors, farmers in this group could easily implement other principles of the circular bioeconomy and make use of subsidies available under eco-schemes and other schemes.

Analysis of groups 5 and 6, referred to collectively as the “Silent majority” (of smaller and bigger producers), which dominated the survey (39% and 19%), presents a totally different image of the approach to actions in the area of the circular bioeconomy. Group 5 hardly uses composting at all (mean: 1.4), and that behavior differentiates it from group 6 (mean: 4.3), where composting is fairly widespread. In groups 5 and 6, use of one’s own seed and planting material is low (mean, respectively, of: 2.5 and 2.5), agroecological systems are not used (mean: 2.0 and 2.9), there is a lack of water recovery and saving systems (mean: 1.9 and 2.3), and a lack of desire to look for alternatives to single-use materials and plastic packaging (means: 1.7 and 1.9). Producers in this group do not use biomass for energy needs and do not have any plans to do so in cooperation with biogas plants or other recipients of biomass (means gr. 5: 1.3 and 1.4 and gr. 6: 1.5 and 1.8). Despite this, they have quite a high assessment of their own knowledge of the bioeconomy (means: 4.2 and 4.1) and have relatively positive attitudes to it (means: 3.5 and 3.7). The dissonance between knowledge and perception and actions taken is particularly striking in this group. From a demographic point of view, group 5 consists of people who are, on average, slightly older (mean: 3.2) than those in group 4, but they still have several decades of productive activity ahead of them. In terms of education, they do not differ from members of group 4. They are differentiated by lower (though not very low) income (mean: 3.1) and smaller, though not very small, farms (mean: 4). Those in group 6 are characterized by lower incomes than members of gr. 5, and households in group 6 are larger than in group 5. It thus may be the case, in a manner somewhat similar to the “struggling” group, that a lower level of income results in a tendency of farmers to adopt certain circular behaviors, which is related to the reduction of costs.

The group in which behaviors integral to the circular bioeconomy are encountered most rarely is also worthy of attention. We have called it the “Question marks” group. It is group 1, the youngest group (mean: 2.3), with relatively large farms (mean: 5.9) and a moderate, somewhat lower level of incomes than group 4 (mean: 3.4). The lowest levels of 6 types of behaviors were noted in this group: there is no use of agroecological systems, water recovery, looking for substitute materials for plastic packaging, as well as no use of own seed and planting materials or biomass for energy purposes. At the same time, readiness to cooperate with biogas plants and other recipients of biomass is high in this group (mean: 3.4), as was use of composting which was widespread (mean: 4.1). Farmers in this group declare themselves to have a high level of knowledge of the bioeconomy, while having a moderately sympathetic attitude towards it. Youth and a lack of experience, along with a slightly higher social capital, manifested in a readiness to cooperate, indicate that work on the development of awareness in this group could, perhaps, have positive results.

The last group was defined as “Marginalized”. It is the oldest group with the lowest incomes per capita and the smallest farms. This perhaps forces farmers to use composting, which reduces the costs of running the farm. In this group, self-assessment of knowledge of the bioeconomy is the lowest, though the mean is still 4. There is a lack of desire to cooperate with other farmers and an understanding of the use of biomass for non-agricultural and non-food purposes. It is worth noting that here the use of agroecological systems and the use of one’s own seed material and water-saving techniques are all at a relatively high level (3 or above). It seems that this is an effect brought about by taking actions intended to guarantee farmers a reduction in the costs of running a farm.

In summary, a higher level of implementation of the circular bioeconomy is characteristic of farmers, who have larger farms and higher incomes, and who also have a certain degree of professional experience, which is perhaps conducive to a greater degree of openness to innovation and cooperation. It should be emphasized that these features are characteristic of a very small proportion of farmers in the surveyed population. The largest group (5), consisting of nearly 40% of respondents, is characterized by a lack of actions typical of the circular bioeconomy and a reluctance to cooperate. Across the entire population surveyed, a very high level of declared knowledge of the bioeconomy can be observed. To explain this dissonance and identify potential barriers to the implementation of the principles of the circular bioeconomy, the survey of farmers was supplemented by in-depth interviews conducted with farm advisors, who are in close contact with farmers and are responsible for the dissemination of EU policies and laws among farmers.

5.2. Results of Qualitative Research: Interviews with Farm Advisors (P2)

The purpose of interviews conducted with farm advisors was to determine to what extent advisors are guided by the goals of the circular bioeconomy. Are they promoting behaviors and actions integral to it, and how do they perceive actions being taken by farmers that are conducive to the circular bioeconomy? The participants in the 38 in-depth interviews were employees of Farm Advisory Centers in Poland, representing 10 voivodeships. All respondents were employed as advisors and were in constant contact with farmers.

• Knowledge of advisors about the circular bioeconomy strategy

The topic of the first part of the interview was awareness of European bioeconomy strategy, knowledge of the concept itself, and assessment of its significance for agriculture. The answers given by advisors turned out to be strongly polarized, with nearly one advisor in three never having heard about bioeconomy strategy, or the concept of the bioeconomy, or the circular bioeconomy. Often, they did not have an opinion about its significance, either. Among people who were familiar with the term circular bioeconomy, there were strong differences in how it was understood. Advisors defined the circular bioeconomy from an agricultural perspective. Those who were familiar with the concept understood the meaning of closed-loop biomass (in one case, an advisor referred to cascaded use of biological raw materials), and often associated the circular bioeconomy with organic farming or biodiversity strategies. Several people raised objections to the term circular bioeconomy: “In my job, the term circular bioeconomy is not really used. Of course, we provide training courses, for example, in that area, but it has more to do with biodiversity in agriculture. Various ecological topics linked to eco-schemes, concerning integrated farming, for example. Or, for example, an eco-scheme, in which farmers are actually not very interested, and which concerns the use of materials of biological origin”. A very similar perspective was expressed in another interview: “What I have noticed is the fact that in those EU programs, things are written and spoken about in mysterious terms. A strange name here, some abbreviation there. I read it and I don’t know what it’s all about. That name that you are talking about is some kind of secret jargon, and it’s hard to work out what it means. If you were to tell me right away that it’s about re-using biomass, that it’s about waste staying in a closed loop, then I know what that means”. Uncertainty about one’s own knowledge was also expressed in statements about the significance of the bioeconomy for the agricultural sector. Some talked about the bioeconomy as a way of freeing oneself from dependence on fossil fuels (gas) and as a pro-environmental economic alternative, with mention often being made of the aspect of the savings associated with the circular bioeconomy, which should be of interest to farmers. Several respondents saw the significance of the bioeconomy solely in the context of organic farming: “To put it very simply, it’s all about introducing organic food”. In another case, one respondent strongly politicized actions related to a change in approach to agricultural production, and though he did not unequivocally condemn them, he strongly distanced himself from the innovation of the circular bioeconomy, expressing concerns related to the move away from coal-based energy, which will have an impact on greenhouse production. The lack of a common message from advisors is perfectly illustrated by these two statements on the topic of the significance of the circular bioeconomy for Polish and European agriculture and agribusiness: “I believe that the circular bioeconomy is of major significance, because it of course concerns the entire chemical industry, the development of new production/processing methods, and, in agriculture, above all, agricultural biogas plants, and energy from biomass”, contrasted with the following statement: “Today, the circular bioeconomy is of no significance. In the future, it should be. Let’s see what happens…”. One phenomenon worth emphasizing is the appearance on several occasions in statements of claims about the low level of knowledge and awareness of farmers on environmental issues, which is supposed to pose an obstacle to the implementation of the bioeconomy. To sum up this part of the interviews, three standpoints can be noted: firstly, the lack of knowledge of and associations with the circular bioeconomy declared by around 1/3 of respondents, secondly: a selective or inaccurate understanding of the term and the resulting difficulties related to explaining the significance of the bioeconomy and associated issues, and in several statements: a clear understanding of the concept and significance of the bioeconomy.

• Are actions integral to the circular bioeconomy being recommended to farmers?

In contrast to the first thematic area, here, advisors show a significantly higher level of commitment and knowledge, which they are seeking to transfer to farmers. In all the interviews, only two people actually refrained from recommending actions integral to the circular bioeconomy, arguing that their role is not to shape farmers’ attitudes, but to help them to fill out documents, if the farmer himself shows an interest in specific actions or programs. There are considerable differences in approach in the area of support for organic agriculture. When asked if they recommend an organic approach to farmers, most advisors were positive or very positive about it and were keen to underline their commitment: “I personally do, and do so a lot, as I work in the organic farming sector. There’s a great deal of variation when it comes to motivation. Sometimes people switch to organic farming for economic reasons, but they meet other organic farmers and, through talking to and cooperating with them, their attitude changes completely. They say that, even if there were no EU subsidies, they would still want to run the farm in that way and that they want to be certified anyway. They already have their customers, and they have animals, which help them to keep the loop closed. They do not use any chemicals and see what a great effect that has on the whole farm”. In several statements, there was a reluctance to use the term ‘organic’: “I don’t encourage an organic approach, as I am skeptical about it. I’m talking about organic farming as imposed by regulations. Because, as we know, very little of the organic approach imposed by regulations is really organic farming. It’s art for art’s sake. So, I avoid using the term organic, and instead talk rather about sustainable, rational agriculture”. Generally, however, the responses of the vast majority of advisors clearly support the implementation of sustainable agronomic systems. In addition to the environmental aspects, advisors also highlighted savings as a benefit. Most advisors also promote water and energy savings. In relation to water, regional differences in statements are visible. Advisors from the central part of the country, where droughts are a serious problem, are without a doubt more sensitive to that issue, and also note greater interest from farmers. Advisors see the benefits of renewable energy sources, though, in their opinion, there are still many farmers who remain unconvinced. Renewable energy is most often associated with photovoltaics and sometimes raises concerns related to low network capacity and a lack of energy storage. The correlation between the personal experiences of advisors and their motivation to promote renewable energy sources is also worth underlining. Advisors, who implement such practices in their own daily lives, see the related benefits, and are more willing to support farmers in this area: “I benefit from the solution myself, so I see the savings. I have photovoltaic panels at home, so I am all the more convinced of the benefits it can bring”. Another advisor says something similar: “Absolutely. I have panels at home myself, so I’m experimenting with it. Ultimately, I’m planning to have a 30 kW panel, which will load my battery, and I will have electricity all year round. So yes, of course, I absolutely do encourage it. Electricity is so expensive, and thanks to those panels, it’s brighter in my kitchen than it’s ever been. And for lighting in my kitchen, I am already completely self-sufficient”. Another issue that came up in several statements was a lack of biogas plants, for which there are sites and raw materials, but there is often a lack of will on the part of biomass suppliers. Advisors have a positive attitude towards both water saving and recovery systems and renewable energy, though their statements show a lack of conviction that the rural community is ready for a solution of that type. When asked about promoting the use of closed-loop fertilizers, such as compost and manure, everyone responded positively. Many interviewees underlined that they do not have to promote such behaviors, as farmers totally understand the benefits of using this type of fertilizer. This does not match the declarations of farmers, more than half of whom do not make any use whatsoever of biomass from their own farm, which could be transformed into fertilizer. Talking about composting and the use of manure showed there to be problems with the logistics of that raw material, with there being too much of it in some regions, and not enough in others. For some advisors, recommending the use of farmers’ own biomass is a no-brainer. Some advisors acknowledge that biomass is not being used properly and efficiently: “I see a problem with the proper use of manure, in compliance with the applicable standards in Poland. Transport is another problem. In areas where there is a lot of livestock farming, there is plenty of manure. It could be transported to areas where there is not enough of it. But we are not good at doing this”. Advisors do not, however, address the problem of the oversupply of plastics on farms. The majority of people narrow the understanding of this problem down to the purchasing of agrochemicals and seed material, which may be packed in plastic sacks. Advisors in the area of organic farming are more sensitive to this issue. One person mentioned a presentation on biodegradable agrotextiles, while others talked about biodegradable strings. The problem of single-use plastic packaging is not often touched upon by advisors, though several of them admit to having seen texts on that topic in industry bulletins. Because capacity for innovation is a condition for the successful development of the circular bioeconomy, this topic was also included in this part of the interview. Advisors were asked to express a position on the readiness of farmers to implement innovations and to identify potential obstacles to the development of the capacity for innovation. None of the advisors clearly stated that farmers are closed to innovation. Advisors identified two key factors blocking the implementation of innovations: age and cost. In many statements, the capacity for innovation is attributed to young farmers or those who have a successor. Readiness for innovation is also associated with the expected financial benefit in the short term. It was often emphasized that farmers, even if they are looking for innovations, are more guided by economic factors related to efficiency and savings, rather than a concern for the environment. In the eyes of advisors, owners of large farms are more innovative (which, in the case of the specific Polish context and considerable fragmentation, means a farmer larger than 10 ha). This is confirmed in the clustering, which allowed us to identify a group most open to behaviors integral to the circular bioeconomy. In the opinion of advisors, the innovations that farmers are interested in are, above all, Agriculture 4.0 and no-till farming. In all the statements, only one person talked about cases known to them of the implementation of aquaponics and vertical farming by one of the organic farmers whom they were advising. Several interviewees estimated that, in practice, only 20–30% of farmers are interested in searching for and implementing innovations. This part of the interviews also showed significant regional variation. The North and the large farms present there are much more active in implementing innovations, taking investment risks, and seeking subsidies for those purposes. The more fragmented agriculture in the South goes for the simplest support schemes, which guarantee survival and do not require significant changes in agricultural practice. To sum up this part of the interviews, terminology and detailed programs related to organic production, water and energy management, or innovative solutions allowed advisors to speak much more freely and comfortably. Opinions on specific topics were much more consistent than in the case of discussion of the bioeconomy at a more general level.

• Assessment of the behavior of the farmers and their institutional environment

In the last part of the interview, respondents assessed the behavior of farmers and institutional conditions for the implementation of innovations and environmental programs. The level of farmers’ involvement in both innovation and environmental programs is consistent. The vast majority of advisors indicate that farmers are interested in these programs, but they also reveal that there are two conditions to this. The first is age—it is above all younger farmers who are interested in innovations, with fear of changes being predominant among the older generation. The second condition is the possibility of obtaining financial subsidies. The topic came up several times, that interest follows the money. Advisors rarely see farmers to be people who consciously shape the natural environment. Such an assessment appears in several interviews given by people who specialize in ecological consulting. Several advisors also mentioned the politicization of programs and messaging about strategies, which has a negative impact on farmers’ readiness for change: “They are discouraged by politicians. The rhetoric of politicians is that all farmers’ problems are caused by the Green Deal”. The opinions of two advisors included negative assessments of the goals of organic and sustainable agriculture, which is consistent with the fact that some advisors are also succumbing to this fear. Respondents also referred to institutional support for innovation and environmental programs. They generally agree that there are enough support programs and that they are available; however, there is a lack of a clear strategy, stability of processes, and clearly communicated goals. Some point to the fact that young farmers who are not afraid to apply for grants make use of programs: “It’s not your typical farmer”, said one of the respondents. Undoubtedly, one of the biggest successes was the subsidies granted within the framework of the Agriculture 4.0 program, though advisors from regions in the center and north of Poland pointed out that funds were already used up on the opening day for applications or within 2 to 3 days. A great deal less interest in the program was noted in regions with high farm fragmentation. Also of interest is the discussion about innovations itself, which arises among advisors and the way of understanding innovations, which in certain regions of the country mean the insulation of buildings and replacement of asbestos cement roofing, in others a better tractor with an air-conditioned cabin, and in yet others even the full robotization and computerization of farm management. The interviews, thus, at the same time, revealed huge regional differentiation in agriculture. This includes assessment of the implementation of innovative and pro-environmental solutions. There are differences in advisors’ assessments, but opinions indicating a low level of implementation both of innovations and environmental programs prevail; the most optimistic people talk about an early phase of development and potential to be exploited. Only two advisors in the north-west of the country claimed that agriculture in their area was technologically advanced and did not diverge from the best practices in very highly developed countries, and that farmers have a good level of awareness. By contrast, in the south of the country, one of the advisors said that farm work in his region is done more “with the spade than with the computer”. Another recurring motif is that of money, or rather a lack of money, the high costs of innovation and unavailability of funds (or an inability or lack of will to try and obtain them), especially among small and medium-sized farms. Respondents do not note any knowledge or awareness of the potential of biomass among farmers, and some people also emphasized that they themselves need more knowledge and training in this area. Only two statements referred to the use of biomass in biogas plants, and one mentioned a program using biomass (straw and bran) for the production of single-use tableware/cutlery. There is absolutely no knowledge among farmers and very little knowledge among advisors of the potential of biomass for the production of composites, bioplastics, biochemicals, etc. One of the obstacles to the development of this potential is the widely reported reluctance to cooperate among farmers. The topic of the inability of farmers to cooperate came up in nearly all the interviews, along with their individualism and inward-looking attitude, where “everyone pulls in their own direction”. Several statements referred to incentives for groups of producers that farmers made use of, but where the groups either fell apart after the funds were used up or were formed among relatives solely to obtain support for a given period. Some of the respondents point to the need to learn such cooperation or for a change of generations in order to survive and improve one’s competitive position. Only one of the interviewees talked about positive experiences where producers are able to build cooperation and make use of it.

Based on the analyses conducted, it can be concluded that advisors have moderate awareness and knowledge of the circular bioeconomy. They promote attitudes and actions among farmers, which are integral to certain areas of the circular bioeconomy, the receptiveness to and implementation of which among farmers is, in their view, limited. Farmers who are open to innovation or to a paradigm shift in agricultural production are in the minority. Most farmers are wary not only of new approaches to their own work but also of the institutional environment and cooperation with others.

6. Discussion

The aim of this article was to provide answers to three research questions: (Q1). Are farmers implementing (either consciously or not) values and practices of the circular bioeconomy? (Q2). Are farm advisors promoting these values and practices to farmers? (Q3). What are the potential barriers preventing farmers from transitioning to the circular bioeconomy? The answer to the first of these questions (Q1) is negative. The vast majority of farmers surveyed do not apply the principles of the circular bioeconomy. There are, however, groups of farmers who display greater openness to those practices, both in relation to work on the farm and closing the loop on the farm, and in relation to external cooperation (with other farmers, biogas plants). What these groups have in common from a demographic perspective is the average age of farmers, above-average income per capita in the household, and larger farm sizes. Younger, relatively well-off farmers form a group that is more open than others to the use of biomass for the production of biogas, and to the cooperation that goes with it. Another group of farmers that also seems to be important consists of farmers who are less well-off but are implementing certain actions, apparently for reasons of savings and in an attempt to reduce costs. The largest group is made up of farmers who have no interest in the practices of the circular bioeconomy or in cooperation with other entities. Interestingly, farmers in all groups assessed their own knowledge of the bioeconomy as good or very good. The values and attitudes of farmers identified are confirmed in the statements of farm advisors, which paint an image of a social group of farmers who are, for the most part, not interested in change and are rather passive in attitude, with low social capital and reluctant to cooperate. According to farm advisors, there is a small group of 15–30% of farmers who are younger, better educated, have farms which are larger than average, and are open to innovations, including in the sense of implementation of pro-environmental practices. Most advisors emphasize the importance of financial incentives and the fact that if specific actions are related to additional support, farmers show an interest. A number of individual voices among farm advisors refer to farmers who are, out of conviction, implementing organic production and treatments associated with it. They are, however, highly determined individuals who are a driving force in their communities. Though advisors voiced a lot of critical opinions regarding farmers’ knowledge of the principles of the circular bioeconomy, they are themselves aware of lacking adequate knowledge to encourage farmers to become part of the circular bioeconomy network. In the dissemination of information, references are to be found to certain elements of the circular bioeconomy, but they are selected, individual actions. Knowledge does not seem to be passed on systemically, in a broader context. This is perhaps due to the fact that most of the advisors interviewed had problems with defining the bioeconomy and the goals of its strategy. The bioeconomy is, of course, not the same as the Common Agricultural Policy, which sets out the framework for actions taken by advisors, but it has similar and overlapping goals.

The answer to the second question (Q2) is thus ambiguous and requires more in-depth analysis. The advisors’ declarations include actions whose implementation would support the circular bioeconomy, but, as the advisors themselves say, the number of farmers looking for solutions for themselves is too small, openness to innovation is tied to financial incentives and demographic characteristics, and the level of understanding of the relationship between farmers’ activities and the natural environment is low.

There is also the political aspect, present in just a few of the advisors’ statements, but it seems that, in the farming community, certain practices, which are reasonable from an environmental and financial perspective, may be rejected out of hand due to certain political prejudices.

These conclusions lay the ground for the answer to the last question about barriers to the implementation of the circular bioeconomy (Q3). The answer to that question was based, above all, on conclusions from in-depth interviews with farm advisors. There seem to be many barriers to the implementation of the circular bioeconomy, both on the part of producers of biomass and in their institutional environment, including:

-

A lack of action, despite declared knowledge, allows us to suppose that, in reality, that knowledge and awareness are incomplete, or that the farmers who are aware do not have the means to transform that awareness into action;

-

Advisors point to the low level of knowledge about the bioeconomy among farmers but assess their own level of knowledge in that area as inadequate. According to them, concepts related to the bioeconomy seem to be unclear, making them difficult to promote and implement;

-

Farmers and farm advisors have a limited awareness of the possibility of using biomass in innovative ways, such as in the production of bioplastics, biochemicals, or biocomposites. Biomass is often treated solely as a fertilizer or fuel, limiting its circular potential;

-

Openness to innovation and implementation of practices of the bioeconomy are more visible among younger farmers with larger farms and higher incomes. Most of those surveyed belong to the groups defined in the survey as the “Silent majority” or the “Marginalized” group, characterized by a low level of implementation of circular practices and a lack of initiative;

-

Low social capital manifesting itself in the form of a reluctance to cooperate and low trust in public institutions, coupled with prejudices of a political nature. Both quantitative and qualitative studies underline the problem of the inability of farmers to cooperate with each other, making it difficult to create groups of producers or cooperatives, which could support the implementation of the principles of the circular bioeconomy;

-

Insufficient funds of their own for investment or an inability to obtain funds;

-

A lack of clear guidelines or a consistent communications strategy on the part of institutions is also limiting the development of this approach;

-

A lack of consistent messaging on the subject of the implementation of bioeconomy strategy and barriers to the dissemination of knowledge of its benefits, which may be the result of inadequate state involvement in the development and promotion of bioeconomy strategy.

Certainly, these are not the only barriers hindering the development of the circular bioeconomy in Polish agriculture. The research conducted does, however, reveal there to be a problem along the axis of sender (institutional environment) and recipient (farmer). One could have the impression that the basic problem affecting the entire channel is a lack of knowledge and awareness, as well as prejudice and a lack of public trust. The second axis is that of funding—access to funds, which also connects the institutional environment with farmers. It is, thus, possible to talk about a certain type of value deficit, encompassing the sphere of both social and purely economic values.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

There has been limited research into the attitudes of farmers to the bioeconomy in the EU. The authors of a study conducted with a group of farmers in Greece (Macedonia) found there to be a relatively high level of engagement of farmers in the circular bioeconomy, though many farmers lack a basic of knowledge of farming practices, such as soil fertility management, crop protection or the use of modern means of production. Many farmers also face obstacles such as limited water resources, rising energy prices, and fluctuating climatic conditions, requiring them to have a comprehensive grasp of modern management practices stemming from the bioeconomy [61]. This is why one key recommendation is training for farmers. A lack of knowledge is also a problem that has been diagnosed among farmers in Romania, where the authors did, however, find farmers to have positive attitudes to the bioeconomy. The problem with the implementation of the bioeconomy in Romania is the lack of involvement of the public authorities and underfinancing of the bioeconomy [62]. The conclusions of those studies are quite similar to the conclusions of studies conducted with Polish farmers and advisors. The value deficit mentioned allows recommendations to be systematized around these two axes: social and economic values. Knowledge and awareness, both among farmers and among farm advisors, should be strengthened via multiple channels. These groups need to familiarize themselves with the terminology and its actual meaning. Part of the responsibility lies here with the media, which can normalize acceptance of the term circular bioeconomy, take care to ensure that messaging about it is neutral or positive, and free of political context. It would undoubtedly be of great support if this topic were to appear in public debate.

The process of creating a national bioeconomy strategy has been underway for a dozen or so years now, but in Poland, there is no public discourse that would allow the topic to be examined in greater detail and make it possible to engage with all stakeholders. Industry training, as well as clear, widely disseminated terminology and information campaigns, are obviously key in supporting awareness. In addition to this, it is also crucial to develop models of cooperation to strengthen the social capital and social trust of farmers and other stakeholders. Perhaps other forms of cooperation between biomass producers than groups of producers will have to appear and receive support, forms that are better adapted to regional specifics, as well as to farm type, production, size, and the problems that farms are dealing with. The regionalization of support allows it to be adapted to local needs, such as the creation of support programs and educational activities tailored to specific regional conditions, such as problems related to drought or the overproduction of manure in certain regions, for example. One of the solutions could be the differentiation of support policies depending on the profile of farmers. Support programs should include components tailored to: young, well-off farmers (e.g., for the development of investments in biogas plants), less well-off farmers (e.g., for improving the efficiency of internal circulation), and the passive majority (through education and simple demonstration tools). When it comes to financial support, actions are already guaranteed under the Common Agricultural Policy, though there should be repeated and concerted action to facilitate and promote access to the funding of actions compatible with the principles of the bioeconomy, such as subsidies for biogas plants, water saving systems or the purchasing of biodegradable materials. Though building the infrastructure to allow the bioeconomy to develop may seem to be an important recommendation, it is worth remembering that such development will only be possible once barriers relating to the awareness and readiness of producers have been broken down. A coherent and systemic communication of bioeconomy policy is needed. This requires integrating the bioeconomy narrative with agricultural, climate, and environmental policies and conducting a coherent information campaign that builds trust and explains the goals of the bioeconomy strategy. An important role can be played by field activities—supported and promoted activities of leaders in the environment, creating a network of “reference farms” operating on the basis of closed circulation, activities popularizing local successes, including agricultural schools and non-governmental organizations in educational activities. One solution could be to create funding programs/programs to raise awareness, especially targeted at small and medium-sized farms, in order to reduce the costs to them of implementing innovations and make them more open to such innovations. Finally, guaranteeing stable, predictable programs to support innovation and transformation is also key. Many of these recommendations are already being implemented to varying degrees. They are not, however, associated with the bioeconomy and do not constitute a consistent message, which may be related to the fact already mentioned above that there is still no strategy at a national level in Poland to strengthen and structure messaging and initiatives leading to action.

This study has significant limitations. The most important of them is the composition of the sample of respondents running farms. This sample is dominated by people with higher and secondary education, which does not reflect the actual level of education among farmers. However, the reluctance of people with a lower level of education to participate in the study is, in itself, some information about limited openness to other stakeholders, cooperation, and innovative activities. Research on a larger group could help to clarify the characteristic features of individual clusters, which is important from the perspective of identifying needs and linking them to specific circular bioeconomy solutions. An interesting research direction would also be to investigate the gap in knowledge about bioeconomy declared by farmers and the deficit in their behaviors.