IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12098-d924202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Irish Dairy Farmers’ Participation in the Bioeconomy: Exploring Power and Knowledge Dynamics in a Multi-actor EIP-AGRI Operational Group

Author

Listed:
  • Kieran Harrahill

    (School of Architecture, Planning & Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, D14 E099 Dublin, Ireland
    Teagasc-The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Rural Economy & Development Programme, Mellows Campus, Athenry, H65 A063 Galway, Ireland
    BiOrbic—SFI Bioeconomy Research Centre, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Áine Macken-Walsh

    (Teagasc-The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Rural Economy & Development Programme, Mellows Campus, Athenry, H65 A063 Galway, Ireland
    BiOrbic—SFI Bioeconomy Research Centre, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Eoin O’Neill

    (School of Architecture, Planning & Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, D14 E099 Dublin, Ireland
    BiOrbic—SFI Bioeconomy Research Centre, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Mick Lennon

    (School of Architecture, Planning & Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, D14 E099 Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

The European Commission’s European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI), part of the European Commission’s Europe 2020 strategy, aims to ‘achieve more and better from less’ by bringing together a diversity of innovation actors to harness their combined knowledges to creatively achieve sustainability goals. The creation and novel use of biomaterials remains both a significant challenge and opportunity and bringing together all the relevant actors from primary production through to refinement and processing is anticipated to make progress in bringing into practice pilot operational approaches on the ground. For the bioeconomy, a nascent sector, it is a significant challenge for it to become established; grow; innovate and engage all the relevant actors. It has been noted internationally that primary producers, among other cohorts, remain marginalised from bioeconomy activities, which significantly compromises how inclusive and innovative the bioeconomy is likely to be henceforth. In this context, an interesting case study is the Biorefinery Glas Operational Group (OG), located in Ireland. The OG was a ‘small-scale-farmer-led green biorefinery supporting farmer diversification into the circular bioeconomy’. The central research question of this paper concerns the dynamics of farmers’ participation in the OG, focusing specifically on how their knowledges shaped the operation of the OG and bioeconomy activities within it. This paper presents a social network graph illustrating the diverse actors involved in the OG, their relative degrees of connectedness to each other, and an overview of the differing levels of actors’ influence in the network. Interrogating the roles of different actors further, a lens of power theory is used to explore how farmers’ knowledges were used in combination with others’ knowledges to shape the development of the OG and innovation within it. The overall conclusion from an analysis of interviews conducted with farmer and non-farmer participants in the OG is that while farmers were highly connected with other members of the OG and viewed their involvement in the OG positively, the level of influence they had in decision-making processes in some areas of the OG was relatively limited. Different types of members of the OG tended to work in a relatively segmented way, with farmers contributing as input suppliers and on the practical side at the farm level, while other members of the OG such as scientists worked on more technical aspects. This paper concludes by providing conclusions and lessons of relevance to innovation-brokers and practitioners, and for the operation of OGs involving farmers elsewhere.

Suggested Citation

  • Kieran Harrahill & Áine Macken-Walsh & Eoin O’Neill & Mick Lennon, 2022. "An Analysis of Irish Dairy Farmers’ Participation in the Bioeconomy: Exploring Power and Knowledge Dynamics in a Multi-actor EIP-AGRI Operational Group," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12098-:d:924202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12098/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12098/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2021. "Industrial and Bioenergy Crops for Bioeconomy Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-5, September.
    2. Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J. & Martinát, S. & van der Horst, D., 2021. "Changes in feedstocks of rural anaerobic digestion plants: External drivers towards a circular bioeconomy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. Anna Nowak & Anna Kobiałka & Artur Krukowski, 2021. "Significance of Agriculture for Bioeconomy in the Member States of the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Yehia Zahran & Hazem S. Kassem & Shimaa M. Naba & Bader Alhafi Alotaibi, 2020. "Shifting from Fragmentation to Integration: A Proposed Framework for Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, June.
    5. Ivan S. Adolwa & Stefan Schwarze & Imogen Bellwood-Howard & Nikolaus Schareika & Andreas Buerkert, 2017. "A comparative analysis of agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in Kenya and Ghana: sustainable agricultural intensification in the rural–urban interface," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 453-472, June.
    6. Schröter, Barbara & Hauck, Jennifer & Hackenberg, Isabel & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2018. "Bringing transparency into the process: Social network analysis as a tool to support the participatory design and implementation process of Payments for Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 206-217.
    7. Pascucci, Stefano & de-Magistris, Tiziana, 2011. "The effects of changing regional Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System on Italian farmers’ strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 746-754.
    8. Schmid, Otto & Padel, Susanne & Levidow, Les, 2012. "The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Hamelin, Lorie & Møller, Henrik Bjarne & Jørgensen, Uffe, 2021. "Harnessing the full potential of biomethane towards tomorrow's bioeconomy: A national case study coupling sustainable agricultural intensification, emerging biogas technologies and energy system analy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Tobias Stern & Ursula Ploll & Raphael Spies & Peter Schwarzbauer & Franziska Hesser & Lea Ranacher, 2018. "Understanding Perceptions of the Bioeconomy in Austria—An Explorative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    12. Armstrong, Peter, 2015. "The discourse of Michel Foucault: A sociological encounter," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 29-42.
    13. Carmen Priefer & Juliane Jörissen & Oliver Frör, 2017. "Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    14. Yaashikaa, P.R. & Kumar, P. Senthil, 2022. "Valorization of agro-industrial wastes for biorefinery process and circular bioeconomy: A critical review," MPRA Paper 112234, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Timo Kuosmanen & Natalia Kuosmanen & Andrea El-Meligi & Tevecia Ronzon & Patricia Gurria & Susanne Iost & Robert M’Barek, 2020. "How big is the bioeconomy?," JRC Research Reports JRC120324, Joint Research Centre.
    16. Laura Anne Devaney & Maeve Henchion, 2017. "If Opportunity Doesn’t Knock, Build a Door: Reflecting on a Bioeconomy Policy Agenda for Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 48(2), pages 207-229.
    17. Thomas Diefenbach, 2009. "Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?: Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 875-894, November.
    18. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    19. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    20. Mairon G. Bastos Lima, 2021. "Corporate Power in the Bioeconomy Transition: The Policies and Politics of Conservative Ecological Modernization in Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-20, June.
    21. Heimann, Tobias, 2019. "Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 225998, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    22. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    23. Camila Fritzen Cidón & Paola Schmitt Figueiró & Dusan Schreiber, 2021. "Benefits of Organic Agriculture under the Perspective of the Bioeconomy: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-19, June.
    24. Sleenhoff, Susanne & Landeweerd, Laurens & Osseweijer, Patricia, 2015. "Bio-basing society by including emotions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 78-83.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Anastasios Michailidis & Christos Karelakis & Yannis Fallas & Aikaterini Paltaki, 2023. "What Makes Farmers Aware in Adopting Circular Bioeconomy Practices? Evidence from a Greek Rural Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Andrea Arzeni & Francesca Giarè & Mara Lai & Maria Valentina Lasorella & Rossella Ugati & Anna Vagnozzi, 2023. "Interactive Approach for Innovation: The Experience of the Italian EIP AGRI Operational Groups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-24, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emilia Mary Balan & Cristina Georgiana Zeldea, 2023. "Bioeconomy in Romania: Investigating Farmers’ Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-29, May.
    2. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2023. "Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Spatial Aspects and a Call for a New Research Agenda," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Luke Kelleher & Maeve Henchion & Eoin O’Neill, 2019. "Policy Coherence and the Transition to a Bioeconomy: The Case of Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
    5. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Erik Gawel & Nadine Pannicke & Nina Hagemann, 2019. "A Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Daniela Pasnicu & Mihaela Ghenta & Aniela Matei, 2019. "Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-9, February.
    8. Sergio Ochoa Jiménez & Gimena Vianey Cervantes Hurtado & Carlos Armando Jacobo Hernández & José Guadalupe Flores López, 2020. "Knowledge and Innovation in Mexican Agricultural Organizations," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Nora Szarka & Laura García Laverde & Daniela Thrän & Orest Kiyko & Mykhailo Ilkiv & Danka Moravčíková & Eva Cudlínová & Miloslav Lapka & Nóra Hatvani & Ákos Koós & Aleksandra Luks & Ignacio Martín Jim, 2023. "Stakeholder Engagement in the Co-Design of Regional Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-37, April.
    10. Idiano D’Adamo & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2022. "Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: the case of Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 989-1021, October.
    11. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    12. Biancolillo Ilaria & Paletto Alessandro & Bersier Jacques & Keller Michael & Romagnoli Manuela, 2020. "A literature review on forest bioeconomy with a bibliometric network analysis," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(7), pages 265-279.
    13. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Leire Barañano & Naroa Garbisu & Itziar Alkorta & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2021. "Contextualization of the Bioeconomy Concept through Its Links with Related Concepts and the Challenges Facing Humanity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    16. Tévécia Ronzon & Susanne Iost & George Philippidis, 2022. "Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift-share analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8195-8217, June.
    17. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Liesbeth de Schutter & Stefan Giljum & Tiina Häyhä & Martin Bruckner & Asjad Naqvi & Ines Omann & Sigrid Stagl, 2019. "Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems: A Framework for Place-Based Responsibility in the Global Resource System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-23, October.
    19. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:9 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Katrin Zander & Sabine Will & Jan Göpel & Christopher Jung & Rüdiger Schaldach, 2022. "Societal Evaluation of Bioeconomy Scenarios for Germany," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, May.
    21. Lena Jarosch & Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Matthias Finkbeiner & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "A Regional Socio-Economic Life Cycle Assessment of a Bioeconomy Value Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12098-:d:924202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.