The Role of Farmers’ Organizations in the Bioeconomy: The Case of the Argentine Association of Direct Seeding Producers (AAPRESID)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the bioeconomy innovations carried out by agricultural producers (farmers) who are members of AAPRESID and the role that this producers’ organization plays in the promotion of the bioeconomy. This research was carried out on the basis of interviews with qualified informants and a survey of 142 farmers associated with AAPRESID. This research identified different types of innovations in the bioeconomy, dominated by sustainable (43%) and productive innovations (34%), different factors that enhance them, mainly availability of information, links with scientific and technological organizations, and technical assistance, and the importance of farmers’ associations in promoting the bioeconomy. A typology of agricultural producers according to the level of development of bioeconomy innovations was built. They are significantly related to the level of socio-economic and environmental impacts. The results contribute to define better promotion practices by farmers’ associations, and to improve policies supporting the bioeconomy. This study consolidates approaches to the role of farmers’ associations in relation to the bioeconomy.

1. Introduction

The bioeconomy can be understood as the production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy [1,2]. It includes agriculture, forestry, fishing, food, pulp and fiber production, as well as sectors of the chemical, energy and medical industries.

The effort to develop the bioeconomy has given rise to a wide variety of strategies at the global level: policies to support the bioeconomy, design of new scientific and technological research strategies, and the creation of companies linked to the use of biological resources, among many others [3]. In Latin America, a relative development of the bioeconomy has been observed, sustained mainly by the strong endowment and diversity of biomass. Several strategies are involved in this dynamic [4]. In the case of Argentina, the government has put forward strategies to support the bioeconomy, especially through the Ministry of Agriculture, and the areas of Science and Technology, like the National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA), the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), and the national Universities [5]. From the private sector, biotechnology companies (national and foreign) and primary good-processing companies have also played a key role since they generate new products and processes with a high knowledge content [6].

The agricultural sector and farmer associations (FAs) constitute a key area for the promotion of the bioeconomy, especially in contexts of increasing decentralization of development practices [7,8]. In this region, a process of decentralization of agricultural and bioeconomic promotion practices in general from national states to FA has been observed for several decades [9,10,11,12]. Traditional public scientific agencies and companies in the sector generate technological innovations, which are increasingly disseminated by producer organizations, such as cooperatives, local associations and technical networks, among others [11]. These organizations are thus assuming increasingly complex productive development promotion activities, and are trying to advance activities of greater value addition and bioeconomic development [13]. As international experience shows, the role of FAs in the promotion and diffusion of innovations is increasingly important, since decentralized mechanisms enable knowledge and innovations to reach a larger and more diverse number of producers [14,15].

However, the role played by these FAs and how they understand the bioeconomy have received little attention in the scientific and political debate. With the exception of a few studies on the role of FAs in the bioeconomy in Europe, such studies are almost non-existent in Latin America. Although their role for a bioeconomy transition is sometimes recognized [16], there is a research gap considering how this could happen, and which factors should be considered. Therefore, we start from the assumption that the development of the bioeconomy needs FAs and that including the agricultural producer in bioeconomy strategies is essential [17]. With this premise in mind, the objectives of this paper are (i) to identify the innovation practices around the bioeconomy carried out by members of an FA, (ii) to understand the type of support provided by this organization, and (iii) to contribute to defining better policies and support instruments for the development of the bioeconomy by FAs in Latin America and beyond, taking Argentina as a case study.

The Argentine Association of Direct Sowing Producers (AAPRESID), an organization linked to technological change in agricultural activity in Argentina over the last three decades owing to its innovative knowledge management system, is taken as a reference model. This study is based on interviews with AAPRESID representatives and surveys of producers and technicians associated with this association. This allows us to answer the following questions:

• How does AAPRESID promote the bioeconomy in its role as an FA?
• How do the members of AAPRESID conceive and understand the bioeconomy?
• What kind of bioeconomic innovations do they set in motion and what are their impacts?
• How could innovations be driven by FAs in order to move towards a more complex bioeconomy?

This research therefore focuses on understanding the logic of an FA and its producers, which is why an exhaustive analysis of these producers and the FA is proposed. No comparison is made with other FAs in Argentina, because the types of crops and production practices developed by the organization’s members are very specific to the Pampas region and to cereal and oilseed crops, which makes it difficult to compare them with FAs in other regions and other types of products.

This article first presents a framework on the role of FA in the bioeconomy and the related innovation system. Then, the methodology is described. The results refer to the meaning of the bioeconomy for farmers, the type of innovations they make and their environmental, economic and territorial impacts. A typology of farmers according to bioeconomic innovations is constructed and its importance for the organization’s bioeconomic strategy is highlighted. In the final section, we conclude by proposing new questions and lines of action to promote the development of the bioeconomy.

2. Conceptual Framework: Farmer Associations and Their Role in the Bioeconomy

2.1. The Farmer Association

An FA can be seen as a group of actors, who organize themselves to carry out actions and achieve objectives that cannot be achieved by producers individually [18]. An FA can have different organizational forms (cooperatives, simple associations by product type, neighborhood associations, etc.) and multiple objectives, such as extension services, promotion of organic products, environmental protection, education, research, marketing of products, among many others [19]. A recognized classification is that proposed by IFAP, whereby an FA can be divided into the following categories [20]:

• Informal producer groups and cooperatives;
• Producer associations or federations;
• Cooperatives controlled by their own members;
• Producer chambers with voting members.

FAs are a key element in agricultural development for both small, medium and large producers [21]. An FA can contribute in various ways to the construction of and improvement in innovations, through the construction of new discourses on the bioeconomy, the creation or identification of new opportunities, identifying new markets or products, creating infrastructure, generating new production processes or creating inputs, among others. An organization can also build capacity through training, dissemination of information, teaching of new techniques, and establishment of new protocols, among others. Finally, an organization can build a favorable environment for innovation, sensitizing its associates to new environmental behaviors, with new social needs, generating a greater willingness on the part of its members to innovate [22].

2.2. Bioeconomy and Innovation

The bioeconomy can represent opportunities for the agricultural sector, such as, for example, creating new sources of income and jobs, opening new markets, connecting with new industries and companies, reducing risks, being more efficient in the use of resources, and better recycling organic waste, thus saving costs. Despite the great opportunities offered by the bioeconomy, farmers and their organizations have not yet fully exploited this potential. Farmers could contribute new innovations processes and products to the bioeconomy; however, the concept remains unclear to farmers and their associations, which is a brake on the development of the bioeconomy. Studies on producers’ perception of the bioeconomy show that there is a direct relationship between the level of familiarity with the concept and the development of bioeconomy initiatives [7], showing that the higher the level of recognition about the potentialities of the bioeconomy, the higher the level of adoption of initiatives is expected [23].

A distinctive factor of the bioeconomy is the high content of knowledge embedded in the innovations carried forward [24,25]. However, innovations are not only focused on the incorporation of new technologies, but also include social processes that allow for the creation of new elements that can provide solutions for society. In other words, innovations are not a simple technology or input, but are a complex process of science, technology, policy, systems and networks [26,27]. In addition, there are several external factors that influence bioeconomy innovation, such as availability of biomass, skilled human resource endowment, good infrastructure, access to markets, public policies and regulations, and macroeconomic and financial conditions, among others [28,29,30].

Dietz et al. [31] have categorized four major bioeconomy transition pathways: (1) transitions focused on the substitution of fossil resources; (2) transitions oriented towards increasing the productivity of the primary sector; (3) transitions around the creation of new uses of biomass and waste; and (4) transitions around the creation of low-volume, high-value products, e.g., nutraceuticals, or pharmaceuticals. These bioeconomic transformation trajectories can be linked to different types of innovation [32], innovations to (1) substitute fossil resources, (2) to initiate more sustainable and efficient processes, (3) to create entirely new products or services, and (4) to initiate new, more sustainable forms of production and consumption.

The recognition and perception that farmers and their organizations have of the bioeconomy is reflected in the types of innovation carried out [33], giving rise to a great diversity of innovations and activities. However, farmers in general follow a logic of enhancing the production and productivity of their traditional primary activities, incorporating novelties, processes or technologies, already tested and socially accepted. These innovations correspond to pathways 2 of productivity improvement pointed out by Dietz et al. [31]. However, there are also farmers who move forward with much more diverse and complex innovations, opening scenarios of greater productive complexity, moving along different pathways at the same time.

The bioeconomy can contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing the use of fossil fuels, reducing CO₂ emissions, and substantially reducing waste through its reuse in other production cycles. But there are also important economic impacts, such as the densification of productive fabrics, the generation of new businesses and jobs, and the growth of the economy, among others [34,35,36]. However, the bioeconomy also plays a key role in the dynamization of territories, as it allows for the consolidation of synergistic development processes in the territories, a topic that is of vital importance in some countries that show processes of marginalization of vast rural areas [37,38].

2.3. The Role of FA in Bioeconomy

The development of the bioeconomy may be determined by the organization in which producers are located. Some organizations are much more effective than others in facilitating the construction of innovations in agriculture and the bioeconomy. Thus, for example, for many decades, the par excellence areas for the construction of innovations were centered in the public sector, with research centers generating innovation processes and then disseminating these to companies or producers [39]; however, in recent decades, decentralization processes, technological change, and new market dynamics, among others, have driven the operation of much more flexible organizations, with the capacity to articulate multiple actors and decision-making levels [40].

In short, farmers can play an important role in the development of the bioeconomy, but for this to happen, the concept of the bioeconomy must be well clarified and promoted by producer organizations. Farmers are already moving forward with very diverse innovations around the bioeconomy, which depend on farmers’ knowledge and characteristics, as well as on various external factors. Depending on the type and diversity of the innovations, positive impacts are generated in economic, territorial and environmental terms; these impacts, in turn, will contribute to modifying the knowledge and the imaginary that producers have about the bioeconomy and its contribution to productive and territorial development in general. Figure 1 summarizes this conceptual frame of reference.

3. Materials and Methods

This research is based on a series of open interviews with key actors of AAPRESID (n = 7), and with several individual producers (n = 6) in order to understand in depth the general problems of farmers, their technological itinerary, the organization’s way of working, and the innovation system put in place, and to validate the results of the surveys and the clusters identified. In addition, a survey was sent twice to 1164 AAPRESID members, of which 142 responded, distributed throughout most of Argentina, with a greater concentration in the Pampa region, where most farmers have their activities. The survey was conducted virtually through survey management software during the months of October and November 2024. In addition, a comprehensive review of all available documentation on AAPRESID, its organizational structure, its programs and projects was carried out. Unfortunately, despite the support from the FA, the response rate was relatively low at 12%; so, a bias due to missing responses could be a problem, as we were unable to compare the demographic and structural parameters of the participants with those of all AAPRESID members.

In the questionnaire, in addition to general socio-economic–demographic characteristics, farmers were asked about their knowledge of the concept of the bioeconomy and how they conceive and understand this concept. It is important to note that no definition of the concept was provided beforehand, as we wanted to understand the AAPRESID members’ understanding of the bioeconomy. This meant they could freely choose up to five keywords to describe this concept. In addition, they were asked about the innovations they had implemented in the last five years and what type of innovations they were interested in. These were based on a predefined list of 20 innovations, divided into the 4 categories mentioned above (substitution, productivity, products and uses, sustainability), with the option to add other innovations. Subsequently, we asked what factors favored or limited the development of these innovations, and what impacts they had on the economic, environmental and territorial spheres, again with a predefined list of responses and using a Likert scale (from 0 = no impact to 3 = much impact). Finally, we asked about the type of support from AAPRESID that was important to carry out these innovations.

Based on the data collected, a descriptive statistical analysis was carried out to provide a general description of the situation of the producers and their innovation processes. Subsequently, a cluster analysis was performed based on the variable “Innovation” with 21 items (Ward method, Euclidean squared distance). The choice of this variable can be justified by the fact that innovation plays a crucial role in the bioeconomy, and therefore the type and number of bioeconomic innovations represent a key distinguishing feature for groups of farmers, which should enable further investigations regarding the factors influencing the innovations of the groups. The number of cluster was determined by the elbow criterion, which yielded three. Also, in terms of content, three clusters made more sense than two or four. One-sided ANOVA showed high F-values for most innovations, indicating good distinguishability between the clusters. Only for six innovations—namely, those implemented by almost all farmers or by almost none—do the clusters not differ significantly. As a majority of the indicators used for clustering differ significantly between clusters (p < 0.000), indicating meaningful separation in terms of innovation profiles, the clusters show strong construct validity, suggesting internally coherent and externally distinguishable innovation profiles. Moreover, we carried out the Fisher–Freeman–Halton exact chi-squared test to check if there is a significance difference in various other variables between the groups (see

Table A1. Cluster analysis.

Variables of Analysis	Stabilized Farmers (n = 58)	Pro-Technological Farmers (n = 70)	Advanced Bioeconomy Farmers (n = 14)	Fisher Exact
General characterization	intermediate/major	Intermediate	young/old	0.020 **
	University students	University students	University graduates with more postgraduate degrees	0.586 *
	Moderately familiar	Moderately familiar	Very familiar with the bioeconomy	0.006 ***
	Largest concentration of more than 5 thousand ha	Higher concentration between 1000 and 5000 ha	Largest concentration of more than 5 thousand ha	0.000 ***
Innovations	Low average number of innovations (4.89)	Median average number of innovations (7.89)	High average number of innovations (12.64)	0.000 ***
Sustainability	2.71	3.71	4.86	0.000 ***
Productivity	1.52	2.93	3.21	0.000 ***
Substitution	0.33	0.44	1.93	0.000 ***
New products	0.29	0.80	2.64	0.000 ***
Shared and cluster-specific innovations	Practices to increase soil fertility and conservation/cover crops/good practices in agrochemical use.			0.117/0.211/0.660
		Agtech/gene editing		0.000 ***
			Traceability/water and energy management/biomass recycling/energy production/use of bioinputs/biofertilizers/new products/new destinations/on-farm processing	0.000 ***
Key factors driving innovations	Availability of information/technical assistance/links to innovation organizations			0.980/0.615/0.413
			Labor availability/market opportunities	0.060 */ 0.025 **
Support from AAPRESID	Technical information/training			0.643/0.915
			Market information/market contacts	0.036 **/ 0.086 *
The impacts of innovations, shared and specific to each cluster	Increased production/reduced risk/reduced costs/improved soil conditions			0.087/0.093/0.105/0.156/
			Diversification of the product basket/creation of new ventures/access to better markets/strengthening of relationships with organizations and networks/employment generation/better use of wastes	0.000 ***
Shared and cluster- specific interests for the future	Practices to increase soil fertility and soil conservation/agricultural diversification and new rotations/good agrochemical practices/cover crops			0.323/ 0.138/0.964/0.942
			Biomass reuse/biorefineries/fertilizer generation from waste/new agricultural production/new destinations for industry/new uses of waste/on-farm processing/agro-Tourism	0.046 **/ 0.017 **/ 0.042 **/ 0.010 **/ 0.012 **/ 0.009 ***/ 0.006 ***/ 0.018 **

* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%.

in the Appendix A).

Table 1. Respondents’ general data (n = 142). Source: own elaboration.

Variables	Indicator	Number	%
Genre	Female	10	7.0
	Male	132	93.0
Age	26 to 35 years old	22	15.5
	36 to 45 years old	35	24.6
	46 to 55 years old	41	28.9
	Over 55 years old	44	31.0
Education	Post grade	36	25.4
	Secondary agricultural and livestock	3	2.1
	Secondary other	9	6.3
	University	94	66.2
Type of activities of AAPRESID’s stakeholders	Others	13	9.2
	Agriculture	51	35.9
	Agriculture and livestock	78	54.9
Surface area worked or advised	Less than 100 ha.	2	1.4
	From 100 to 500 ha.	14	9.9
	From 500 to 1000 ha.	18	12.7
	From 1000 to 5000 ha.	61	43.0
	More than 5000 ha.	47	33.1

presents the general data of the respondents. They reflect well the characteristics of AAPRESID’s members: the vast majority are men, but of all ages, with a high level of education, most of them combining agriculture and livestock farming, and in areas of more than 1000 ha.

4. Results

4.1. How Does AAPRESID Promote the Bioeconomy Within Its Group of Associates?

AAPRESID was created in 1989 by farmers, agricultural advisors, input suppliers and companies, with the objective of incorporating and disseminating technological innovations and practices to reduce erosion problems and improve soil conditions, thus improving the level of production and productivity of cereals and oilseeds [41,42]. It currently has 1800 members from all over the country, but especially from the Pampa region. The focus of the activities was originally on the promotion of no-tillage, with actions of extension, education, information, promotion of technologies, etc. [43]. However, in the last decade, AAPRESID incorporated environmental aspects of production, under the premise that no-tillage is only one more strategy, and that it is necessary to promote other practices such as rotations, crop diversification, value addition and the development of the bioeconomy.

AAPRESID bases its work on two key premises: (a) a horizontal work logic, whereby farmers, development technicians and experts work together on the problem to be solved; and (b) problems must be solved in the actual places of production so that the results come from concrete experience, facilitating their transmission and adoption. Extension and technology transfer activities are organized on the basis of three instruments: (1) the formation and work of “Regional Groups”, (2) the creation of a research, development and extension mechanism called “Sistema Chacras”, and (3) the creation and animation of “Thematic Networks”.

In the regional groups, members held monthly meetings for technical, productive and business exchange on topics of interest to each group. This allows them to adjust management practices according to their productive environments based on the exchange of experiences, also involving other FAs, research institutions, universities and public agencies. At the same time, they organize open days in the field to inform other farmers and advisors about the operation of the no-tillage system.

“Sistema Chacras” (see Figure 2) is a work methodology created so that farmers can find answers to their demands or needs adjusted to their environments and production systems, with scientific rigor. The two central pillars are “horizontal protagonism” and “learning by producing” [44]. The former refers to farmers and researchers working together without hierarchies, with the institutions accompanying this process, and the latter to knowledge being generated in real production scenarios, which means that it is already adjusted, favoring its transfer and adoption. In each Chacra, the farmers define the demands, propose solutions, experiment, contribute their empirical knowledge and provide the economic resources for the operation. They are accompanied by a Development Technician (TD), who is in charge of the execution of the proposed project, and a Board of Experts made up of professionals. In addition, each Chacra is linked to key organizations such as the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA), universities and other government agencies through agreements. There are currently 10 Chacras throughout the country, and another 12 have already been conducted. There is also a program coordination system, which oversees to ensure the proper functioning of the Chacras and links them to each other, made up of the following actors:

• Program Manager: responsible for managing and administering the Chacras system.
• Academic-Scientific Director: participates in the elaboration of the Chacras’ projects.
• Technical Coordinators (TCs): they assist and audit the development technicians in the fulfillment of each farm’s project.

Finally, there are “Thematic Networks” for the generation, exchange and dissemination of knowledge on key issues of a region (e.g., a certain crop, a type of input). These networks involve (1) AAPRESID members who provide information from their fields, carry out adaptive experimentation and share their knowledge; (2) companies that provide technologies to be evaluated (e.g., genetics, machinery, inputs) and contribute economic resources for the operation of the networks; and (3) specialists, who provide their scientific knowledge for the analysis of information and the discussion of advances with farmers. Some examples of thematic networks are the Carbon Network, the Service Crops Network, the Late Corn Network, and the Biologicals Network.

These three working instruments, besides other activities such as open days, the annual congress, a monthly magazine and live streaming program, podcasts and exchange tours, allow the organization to generate, exchange and disseminate information to promote and support innovations.

4.2. How Do AAPRESID’s Member Farmers Conceive and Understand the Bioeconomy?

While 20% of AAPRESID members are very familiar with the bioeconomy concept, 24% are not familiar (

Table 2. Level of familiarity of different members of AAPRESID with the concept of the bioeconomy. Source: own data.

Familiarization Level	General		By Membership Category
			Partners (n = 46)	Managers and Coordinators (n = 56)	Development Technicians (n = 37)
	n	%	%	%	%
I am NOT familiar with	34	24	22	29	19
I am more or less familiar with	80	56	65	52	54
I am VERY familiar	28	20	13	20	27

). The majority of respondents (56%) say they are moderately familiar with the concept. The level of familiarity varies according to the role within AAPRESID. The higher the level of involvement in technical processes, the more familiar the members are. People who participate directly in the farms, those in the Thematic Networks, or program technicians have a slightly higher level of familiarization than the managers or coordinators of AAPRESID’s regional offices and simple partners, i.e., farmers.

In order to observe the imaginary that members have about the bioeconomy, they were asked for up to five key words to describe it. Twenty-eight words were mentioned, of which six stood out that were summarized from the following words (Figure 3):

○

Sustainability: includes words such as ecologically friendly, resource sustainability, sustainable.

○

Business and economy: refers to profitability, agribusiness, production and services, entrepreneurship.

○

Circular economy: refers to circularity, cycle, recycling, reuse, renewal.

○

Value addition: refers to terms such as value addition, creating more value, transformation.

○

Natural resources: refers to terms such as resources, biological resources.

○

Efficiency: refers to terms such as maximization of inputs and outputs, efficient, less waste.

It is worth mentioning that partners who are very familiar with the concept of bioeconomy incorporate more and other words (on average, 4.2 words out of a possible 5), the most significant being value addition, circular economy, business and economy, and sustainability. In contrast, respondents who are not familiar with the bioeconomy use fewer words to characterize it (2.2), and the words they use are mainly sustainability and business and economics. The category of actors more or less familiar is in an intermediate situation (3.0 words used).

To understand the relationships between meanings, an analysis of co-occurrence of keywords, i.e., how many times two words are found together, was carried out (Figure 4). The matrix allowed for observing that there is a significant amount of co-occurrence of keywords between sustainability and business and economy [30], which manifests the idea that many actors have about bioeconomy as a sustainable economic activity. There is also a strong correlation between sustainability and circular economy [19]. Thirdly, there is also a strong co-occurrence between sustainability and natural resources [17]. Other word pairs include sustainability and innovation, sustainability and efficiency, and sustainability and complexity. In addition, the idea of value addition is closely linked to the territory, and business and economy are linked to biology.

In summary, the concept remains polysemic, and is interpreted in different ways by the associated farmers, yet with a clear tendency: the bioeconomy is considered a productive activity that combines sustainability, business, natural resources, value addition, circular logic and efficiency. This conception coincides with other international studies. Thus, refs. [3,17] present bibliometric studies in which the same keywords are generally consigned (sustainability, business & economy, agriculture, conservation, circular economy, bioproducts & bioenergy, biomass), while there are keywords that are not present when addressing AAPRESID farmers, such as climate change or environmental impact. On the other hand, in the case of AAPRESID, there are keywords that are not included in other international studies, such as complexity, efficiency, territory, value-added, environmental awareness.

Clearly, the presence of these keywords translates into farmers’ practices, in the search for sustainability, better business, the creation of a more efficient economy around the use of resources and waste, and the search for greater added value. In short, these keywords not only reflect the thinking of producers, but also the actions and innovations they have implemented (see next section).

4.3. What Innovations Are Generated Around the Bioeconomy?

4.3.1. Types of Innovations

The innovations that the vast majority of farmers (>75%) linked to AAPRESID have implemented are practices to increase soil fertility and soil conservation (a key issue that led to the creation of this association), agricultural diversification processes and new crop rotation practices, good agrochemical use practices, implementation of cover crops and green manures, and innovations in the field of new technologies such as digitalization, robotization and precision agriculture (Figure 5). This set of 5 innovations constitutes 51% of the 21 innovations mentioned in the survey (of which 20 were predefined).

Looking at these innovations from the point of view of the major pathways mentioned above, sustainability (42.5%, in green) and productivity improvement (34.3%, in blue) appear as the most important. Innovations linked to the substitution of fossil resources (13.5%, in black) and the generation of new products (9.6%, in red) are substantially lower.

4.3.2. The Network of Actors Involved in Innovation Construction

Bioeconomic innovations are built on the existence of a network of public and private actors oriented to the generation and transfer of knowledge. Figure 6 presents this network of actors corresponding to farmers associated with AAPRESID. The thickness of the connecting arrows indicates the importance of the link between actors or organizations, while the size of the circle represents the importance of organization in the generation and transfer of knowledge for AAPRESID partners.

Farmers maintain links with all the organizations of the innovation system. With some organizations these links are irregular over time, for example, with CONICET and Universities, and currently with INTA, and with others the links are much stronger, as is the case with AAPRESID, input and service companies and other technical organizations.

Among the public actors, INTA, a public agency dedicated to the generation and transfer of knowledge, stands out. It operates due to its network of experimental stations and research centers distributed throughout the country, where research on products and processes is carried out and then transferred to agricultural producers. INTA has a strong link with AAPRESID for the development and validation of knowledge, which is then transferred to farmers. CONICET also appears as a key actor within the innovation system, but in terms of generating basic knowledge, with weak links to farmers, but with important links to AAPRESID, with whom it develops joint projects generating knowledge. University plays a lesser role, with few links with farmers.

AAPRESID appears as the key actor for farmers since through its extension mechanisms and its links with INTA, CONICET, Universities and other private organizations, it can generate and transfer knowledge and innovations to farmers. Private companies supplying inputs, machinery or services maintain a strong relationship with farmers through the provision of services, and with AAPRESID as they participate in the generation and validation of new knowledge. The importance of companies has been growing in recent decades. Agricultural engineering associations also play an important role in the transfer of knowledge, directly with farmers.

4.3.3. Factors That Promote and Inhibit Innovations

There are various factors that have promoted or restricted innovations by AAPRESID members and are assessed by them, as can be seen in Figure 7, where the factors are ordered from those that less to those that most greatly favored the innovations. Starting with the latter, around 50% of the interviewees mentioned the availability of information (particularly with regard to new production technologies and cover crops provided by AAPRESID), links with scientific and technological organizations (such as the links between AAPRESID and INTA for crop evaluation), and technical assistance (through its Chacras system). These factors are the direct responsibility of AAPRESID; so, it can be said that the organization has a direct role to play in the promotion of bioeconomic innovations. On the other hand, the factors that most limit innovations are the lack of local support, national policies (for example, as defined by farmers, such as lack of support from local councils, or local and national governments) and regulatory frameworks, lack of financing, market opportunities, skilled labor and logistics. These are more structural factors, against which AAPRESID has little capacity to intervene. All these positive and negative factors have also been observed in previous work in Argentina [30,45].

4.3.4. Impacts Generated by Innovations

The main impacts of innovations, mentioned by more than 75% of interviewees, have been the improvement in soil conditions, the creation of new knowledge on agriculture and conservation, the reduction in the use of agrochemicals, the reduction in production risk, the increase in production and the increase in biodiversity (see Figure 8). Other impacts evaluated as not very significant are the improvement in infrastructure and local living conditions, the generation of employment and new enterprises, and the diversification of the product basket.

4.4. A Typology of Farmers in the Bioeconomy

The cluster analysis made it possible to differentiate three major categories of farmers, taking into account as key variables the types of innovations implemented. They are characterized and differentiated as follows (see also Table A1 in Appendix A):

(1)

Stabilized farmers (n = 58): These are farmers who have a university education, are middle-aged or older. They are moderately familiar with the bioeconomy. They have a low average of innovations, preferably oriented towards improving the sustainability of their productive activities, with innovations in new crop rotations, practices to increase soil fertility and conservation, cover crops and good practices in the use of agrochemicals. They have achieved these innovation processes due to the availability of information, their links with technical organizations and owing to the training and information they have received from AAPRESID. These farmers aim to continue with and improve these types of innovations, without moving towards more disruptive innovation processes or a more complex bioeconomy.

(2)

Pro-technological farmers (n = 70): These farmers have mostly the same characteristics as the previous one, but they are significantly younger. They make innovation efforts in the same types of activities, with a strong orientation towards innovations that strengthen sustainability, but also productivity, with a greater technological orientation, i.e., they rely much more on new technologies for agricultural production (robotization, digital agriculture, mapping, use of advanced machinery), and their level of improvement and innovation is very focused on new processes. Towards the future, they have the same interests as the previous group, but with much more emphasis on acquiring and using a new technological arsenal, especially in machinery and processes.

(3)

Advanced bioeconomy farmers (n = 14): This group involves much younger or much older farmers; they are the most familiar with the bioeconomy, and make efforts in all the same sectors as the previous ones, but they are also very innovative in new products and processes of a more advanced bioeconomy. Thus, they are moving forward with activities such as biomass recycling, energy production, generation of new products, and the use of bioinputs, among others. A distinctive element is that in addition to the technical support in production that they have had (like the other types of farmers), this group points out as a key factor, the search for more information, not only technological and productive, but also for new market opportunities, more often than the other groups with the support of AAPRESID, being more proactive in seeking and building cooperation networks and exchange of experiences. In the future, these farmers intend to diversify their production, generate greater added value and promote the reuse and utilization of residues and other by-products, with cascade production schemes.

Figure 9 presents the three producer clusters and their positioning according to their degree of innovation. It is observed that (the average of) the impacts they generate are positively linked to the number of innovations they make (r2 = 0.51, p < 0.001). An evolutionary model is emerging here, from more “traditional”, stabilized farmers with few and well-known innovations to more technologically oriented farmers, who currently form the mainstay of AAPRESID members, and to bioeconomically advanced farmers, who, although still the smallest group, have increasingly diverse bioeconomic innovations and could serve as a model for the other groups.

5. Discussion

5.1. How Does AAPRESID Promote the Bioeconomy in Its Role as an FA?

AAPRESID succeeded in disseminating no-tillage and advancing precision agriculture by creating a network based on heterogeneous actors and a decentralized regional structure. The result was a technical organization with an innovative model of extension and promotion of agricultural development based on regional organization, chacra programs and thematic networks. Its work mechanisms allow it to generate and promote innovations with strong scientific and technological support. With its orientation towards innovations based on a culture of knowledge sharing and networking, it increases the adaptability of the knowledge system to new challenges, as demonstrated by the example of a sustainable bioeconomy.

AAPRESID is supported by a network or innovation system with the participation of recognized public agencies such as INTA, CONICET and Universities, as well as other FAs (AACREA, agricultural engineers’ association) and a wide range of companies involved in technology generation and transfer. These organizations have different objectives and specific forms of action, but through their coordination mechanisms and work programs, AAPRESID values them to build and promote new innovations in bioeconomy. However, there are structural barriers to promoting the bioeconomy that cannot be resolved by AAPRESID, such as the lack of bioeconomic policies and strategies in the country, regulatory frameworks that limit the creation of new processes and products, and farmers’ lack of access to financing.

5.2. How Do the Farmers Associated with AAPRESID Conceive and Understand the Bioeconomy?

AAPRESID farmers have a sufficiently high level of knowledge and familiarity with the bioeconomy that allows them to move in several innovative directions. Their understanding is consistent with current international descriptions of the bioeconomy (see, for example, [46]). However, the bioeconomy approach is only partially embedded in the imaginary of farmers and their organization. Interestingly, it seems that the more familiar the partners are with the bioeconomy concept, the higher the level of innovations made by the partners. It is not quite clear whether this is a causal relationship and how the increased knowledge is transformed into actions. But one measure to promote the bioeconomy could be to further clarify, discuss and disseminate this concept and its opportunities within producer organizations. Papadopoulou et al. [17] also stress the importance of building a comprehensive vision of the bioeconomy concept among farmers.

5.3. What Kind of Bioeconomic Innovations Do They Set in Motion and What Are Their Impacts?

The innovations carried out by most of the farmers associated with AAPRESID are still concentrated in primary production, and in the pathway or innovation path number 2 [31] of improving sustainability and productivity (such as diversification, good agricultural practices, soil conservation), with strong support from new production technologies. This is due to greater awareness of new practices, increased support from AAPRESID, and greater ease and technologies to increase productivity and sustainability. The number of farmers that generate innovations oriented towards a more diverse bioeconomy, with dense production networks, is much smaller. What differentiates these farmers is that they are more oriented towards seeking new market opportunities, for which they develop other capacities (market development, certifications) and show a different predisposition, interest and willingness to innovate.

The economic, territorial and environmental impacts of the bioeconomy depend on the type and complexity of the innovations implemented and the pathway taken. In general, the more innovations are implemented, the greater the impact. This correlation between bioeconomic innovations and positive environmental, economic and territorial impacts shows that the bioeconomy can be important for building sustainable production systems and territories [47].

5.4. How Could Innovations Be Driven by FAs in Order to Move Towards a More Complex Bioeconomy?

The key factors that favored the generation of innovations in farmers are the dissemination of information, the creation of links with other organizations and technical assistance, major elements of innovation systems for agriculture [48,49]. The types of bioeconomical innovations carried out, the impacts generated and the demands for knowledge and innovations allow us to differentiate AAPRESID farmers. This differentiation resembles the one used by Papadopoulous et al. [17], who distinguish between three clusters of farmers in a rural region of Greece, which they call “the engaged, the restricted, and the partially engaged”. The engaged show a strong inclination towards the opportunities of the bioeconomy and see the potential of the bioeconomy, while the constrained ones do not have much expectation of benefits from adopting a bioeconomy production model. As we have seen, one factor is crucial in positively influencing innovation in the advanced group: market opportunities. At the same time, this group receives more support from AAPRESID in providing market information and contacts. Even if not every farmer can or wants to join this group, AAPRESID could leverage these strategies to offer interested farmers this opportunity. This could promote the transformation of stable and technology-oriented producers to advanced bioeconomy producers. In general, differentiating the types of farmers can facilitate specific bioeconomy awareness strategies according to the type of farmer. Similarly, the typology elaborated here can serve as a tool for planning objectives and activities for the planning of AAPRESID’s objectives and activities with respect to the promotion of the bioeconomy.

6. Conclusions

AAPRESID, as an organization with strong experience in the promotion of no-tillage and in the improvement in agricultural production in Argentina, has allowed for a process of technological change around key crops such as soybean to be carried out. This has been possible due to the existence of a framework or innovation system made up of public scientific and technological agencies, private companies and producer organizations. AAPRESID could become, in the future, an effective organization promoting the bioeconomy in the broad sense of the term, that is to say, to go beyond promoting no-till farming and productive and sustainable improvements, to become a promoter of new production logics, new complex and diverse activities and products, capable of enriching the productive fabric and better contributing to the development of rural territories. Some partners are already on this path and their career paths and intentions can serve to better anticipate the bioeconomic development trajectories that may emerge in the future.

However, as stated by several authors [50,51,52], the promotion of the bioeconomy and of more diversified and dense production chains is a task that requires complex strategies, including the creation of new knowledge and innovations, new appropriate governance and cooperation mechanisms, and greater coordination among actors. However, focusing further on the topic and discussing it with its members to recognize more clearly the opportunities and constraints that the bioeconomy can bring, and the formulation of a bioeconomy strategy within the organization could be useful in this regard. In addition, the organization will be able to move forward in utilizing a broader disciplinary base, with more diverse expertise from the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, geography, political science), creating a conducive business climate, seeking more innovative financing schemes, and building a culture that legitimizes the generation of new bio-based processes and products.

This research shows that FAs, beyond the level of effectiveness achieved so far in promoting the bioeconomy, are key areas for promoting these activities. However, FAs can only positively influence certain factors. Furthermore, state actors who influence structural frameworks are crucial in determining whether and how a country’s bioeconomy develops [53]. As this study has shown, political stability, regulatory frameworks and incentive structures, as well as access to financial and logistical infrastructure, represent significant obstacles in Argentina [30,45]. Financial incentives, clear regulations, and public investment in R&D infrastructure can help strengthen the agricultural innovations system. Here, the comparative advantages of the private and public innovation systems should be optimally combined. Building on our study, a more detailed analysis of the innovations system, with its various systemic flaws, based on a comprehensive framework [50] would be necessary to more precisely determine the future direction of organizations such as INTA or CONICET, which are currently undergoing restructuring.

On the other hand, this research presents a series of limitations, as well as a series of opportunities and key research questions for the future: (1) The response rate was relatively low, despite sending the survey twice, and with the support of the FA. Therefore, a non-response bias might be a problem. Even if low response rates in email surveys do not necessarily lead to such a bias, higher rates normally decrease it [54]. Exploring other ways of surveying members of FAs might be useful in the future. (2) The evaluations of the impacts are subjective, and no objective data could be compared with those subjective statements. Future research could conduct field studies with suitable sustainability indicators to capture the (also long-term) impacts of innovative practices. (3) The available information did not allow for an in-depth observation of the key factors that promote the bioeconomy in each type of producer. In the future, specific research would allow for an investigation into the factors that drive or limit the bioeconomy for each of the types of producers identified. (4) It was not possible to observe in depth the capacities of the organization and producers to create a climate of learning and development of the bioeconomy. Further research should analyze not only the ways in which these organizations promote innovations, but also their capacity to learn from their own practices in order to build a continuous learning process around the development of the bioeconomy. (5) This study focused on AAPRESID producers; so, it was not possible to compare the situation with other producer organizations. In the future, it would be desirable to conduct comparative research between several producer organizations in order to understand different paths and strategies for promoting the bioeconomy. (6) The methodological model did not allow for an in-depth analysis of the key factors that motivate type 3 producers to move towards more complex bioeconomic activities. Further research should allow for an analysis of the underlying reasons why these producers are able to move towards a more complex bioeconomy.