Featured projects (1)

Project
The objective of CONSOLE is to boost innovation in the lasting delivery of agri-environmental-climate public goods (AECPGs) by EU agriculture and forestry. To achieve this objective, CONSOLE builds a Community of Practice (CoP) to cocreate an empirically validated contractual framework, design and test effective and efficient contract models and support their implementation by multiple actors. The CONSOLE multi-actor and multidisciplinary team brings together 24 partners in 13 countries, covering representative typologies of actors involved in AECPGs contracts design and implementation. The CONSOLE framework will allow improved design and facilitate implementation of innovative contract solutions for the provision of AECPGs under various conditions across the EU. The CONSOLE framework includes: a) a catalogue showcasing successful experiences and good practices in AECPGs contracting and cooperation models; b) improved AECPGs contracts solutions and their assessment for different levels of governance; c) a comprehensive guide to the process for the design of AECPGs contracts; d) documentation, training and supporting materials. CONSOLE includes a comprehensive analysis of at least 52 case studies of existing experiences encompassing land tenure arrangements, result-based approaches, collective implementation and value chain-based remuneration, supported by surveys and modelling. Building upon these experiences, improved contract solutions will be developed in collaboration with the CoP. The CONSOLE framework will be tested in real decision-making contexts and will develop into a supporting tool for actors in the field, enabling the delivery and sustainability of AECPGs. Insights will improve policy design towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular through environmental policies and the post-2020 CAP.

Featured research (26)

Eco‐schemes are set to play an important role in the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post‐2022 for the delivery of environmental and climate benefits and enhanced animal welfare. This article surveys current plans for the design of eco‐schemes in fifteen European Union Member States. The number of eco‐scheme measures to be offered per country varies between 3 and 21, and the complexity and level of ambition of the individual measures are quite heterogeneous. The majority of the proposed eco‐scheme measures either build upon components from greening obligations or stem from agri‐environmental and climate schemes currently offered under Pillar 2. All fifteen Member States address Green Deal targets, with particular emphasis being given to biodiversity enhancement and non‐productive land. Eight of the countries surveyed are planning to provide support for organic farming through an eco‐scheme. The greater creative freedom offered by the CAP’s New Delivery Model has resulted in a situation where similar measures are programmed as eco‐schemes in some countries and as Pillar 2 measures in others. By adding yet another policy instrument to the CAP’s toolbox, the complexity of the CAP is vastly increased. It remains to be seen how farmers will respond. Dans la politique agricole commune (PAC) de l'Union européenne après 2022, les éco‐régimes sont appelés à jouer un rôle important pour la fourniture d'avantages environnementaux et climatiques et l'amélioration du bien‐être animal. Cet article passe en revue les projets actuels de conception d'éco‐régimes dans quinze États membres de l'Union européenne. Le nombre de mesures d’éco‐régimes à proposer par pays varie entre 3 et 21, et la complexité et le niveau d'ambition des mesures individuelles sont assez hétérogènes. La majorité des mesures d'éco‐régimes proposées s'appuient sur des éléments des obligations de verdissement ou découlent de mesures agro‐environnementales et climatiques actuellement proposées dans le cadre du pilier 2. Les quinze États membres répondent aux objectifs du Pacte vert, un accent particulier étant mis sur l’amélioration de la biodiversité et le foncier non‐productif. Les quinze États membres répondent aux objectifs du Pacte vert, un accent particulier étant mis sur l'amélioration de la biodiversité et les terres non productives. Huit des pays étudiés envisagent de soutenir l'agriculture biologique par le biais d'un éco‐régime. La plus grande liberté créative offerte par le nouveau modèle de mise en œuvre de la PAC a abouti à une situation où des mesures similaires sont programmées en tant qu'éco‐régimes dans certains pays et en tant que mesures du Pilier 2 dans d'autres. En ajoutant encore un autre instrument de politique à la boîte à outils de la PAC, la complexité de cette dernière est considérablement accrue. Reste à savoir comment réagiront les agriculteurs. Eco‐Schemes werden in der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) der Europäischen Union nach 2022 eine wichtige Rolle spielen, wenn es darum geht, einen Nutzen für Umwelt und Klima zu erzielen und den Tierschutz zu verbessern. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die aktuellen Pläne für die Ausgestaltung der Eco‐Schemes in fünfzehn Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union. Die Anzahl der Maßnahmen, die in einem Land angeboten werden sollen, schwankt zwischen 3 und 21. Hierbei sind die Komplexität und Zielsetzung der einzelnen Maßnahmen recht heterogen. Die meisten der vorgeschlagenen Eco‐Schemes bauen entweder auf Komponenten von Greening‐Verpflichtungen auf oder stammen aus Agrarumwelt‐ und Klimaregelungen, die derzeit im Rahmen der zweiten Säule angeboten werden. Alle fünfzehn Mitgliedstaaten befassen sich mit den Zielen des Green Deals, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf der Förderung der biologischen Vielfalt und der nicht produktiven Flächen liegt. Acht der untersuchten Länder planen, den ökologischen Landbau durch ein Eco‐Scheme zu unterstützen. Die größere kreative Freiheit, die das neue GAP‐Modell bietet, hat dazu geführt, dass ähnliche Maßnahmen in einigen Ländern als Eco‐Scheme und in anderen als Maßnahmen der zweiten Säule definiert werden. Durch das Hinzufügen eines weiteren Politikinstruments zum Portfolio der GAP wird die Komplexität der GAP erheblich größer. Es bleibt abzuwarten, wie die Landwirte und Landwirtinnen darauf reagieren werden.
The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not halted farmland biodiversity loss. The CAP post‐2023 has a new ‘‘Green Architecture,’’ including the new ‘‘Eco‐scheme’’ instrument. How can this new Green Architecture help tackle the biodiversity crisis? Through 13 workshops and an online survey, over 300 experts from 23 European Member States addressed this question. From experts’ contributions, key principles for success include preserving and restoring (semi)natural elements and extensive grasslands; improving spatial planning and landscape‐scale implementation, including through collective actions; implementing result‐based approaches; and improved knowledge exchange. To maximize the effectiveness of Eco‐scheme for biodiversity, experts highlighted the need to prioritize evidence‐based actions, allocate a sufficient budget for biodiversity, and incentivize management improvements through higher payment levels. Additionally, stronger coherence is needed among CAP instruments. For effective CAP implementation, the European Commission and the Member States should expand investments in biodiversity monitoring, knowledge transfer, and capacity‐building within relevant institutions. The remaining risks in the CAP's ability to reverse the loss of farmland biodiversity still require better design, closer monitoring, greater transparency, and better engagement with farmers. Additionally, greater involvement of scientists is needed to guide the CAP toward restoring farmland biodiversity while accounting for synergies and trade‐offs with other objectives.
In this paper we discuss relocating the topic of waste management in the wider issue of circular Bioeconomy, with a special focus on the emerging concept of value webs. We do so by reviewing the literature on biomass value webs. Based on this, we discuss the potential role of this conceptual development for food waste management. The main result of the review is that the concept of value webs, though theoretically very interesting, has actually found little application to waste and by-products until now. In spite of this, it may be expected that the concept will expand to this area in the future. This will require advances in terms of data and attention to circularity, but also a better economic conceptualisation allowing more rigorous quantitative applications in support of policy decisions.
Agglomeration bonus schemes are envisioned to incentivize the connectivity of habitat conservation across landowners. Assuming full cooperation among landowners at the landscape scale, the bulk of the literature theoretically finds that agglomeration bonus schemes are more cost effective in achieving biodiversity conservation than spatially homogenous payments. However, it may be rational for landowners not to cooperate all together but, rather, to cooperate within smaller groups. Here, we analyze the cost effectiveness of agglomeration bonus schemes when such partial cooperation is allowed, that is, when cooperation is endogenously chosen. We introduce a spatially explicit ecological-economic model within a coalition formation game to assess how landowners form stable coalition structures and how this affects biodiversity conservation under a wide range of (i) degrees of spatial cost autocorrelation, (ii) bonuses and flat-rate payments, (iii) species dispersal rates, and (iv) coordination costs. We find that agglomeration bonus schemes are more cost effective than homogenous payments only for low public expenditures. This condition is not identified if full cooperation is assumed. We find, however, that full cooperation never emerges and hence that such an assumption leads to an overestimation of the cost effectiveness of agglomeration bonus schemes. Moreover, we find that the cost effectiveness of agglomeration bonus schemes increases when the spatial cost autocorrelation and species dispersal rate decrease. Finally, coordination costs do not affect the cost effectiveness of the agglomeration bonus scheme but they have implications for its design because of their impact on coalition formation.
Agricultural Bioeconomy: Innovation and Foresight in the Post-COVID Era presents recent advancements in biotechnology, laying out a foundation for the optimal utilization of technologies to provide rapid and impactful economic recovery and sustainable resources in a future that will bear the mark of COVID-19. By providing adaptable practices to successfully establish and progress agri-based global bioeconomies, the book presents a new paradigm for kick starting economic engines with a focus on technological foresight and response to future risks and disasters. Key considerations include assessing and managing the urban bioeconomy, climate change mitigation, biofuels and bioenergy, GMOs and job generation. The book provides the solid next step toward future proofing global economies using a combination of agricultural technologies and economic goals. https://www.amazon.com/Agricultural-Bioeconomy-Innovation-Foresight-Post-COVID/dp/0323905692

Lab head

Davide Viaggi
Department
  • Department of Agri-Food Sciences and Technologies
About Davide Viaggi
  • Davide Viaggi Studied at the University of Bologna, Aberdeen, Oxford, at ENSAR (Rennes) and got the PhD at the University of Siena. He is currently Professor at the Department of Agriculture and Food Science at the University of Bologna, teaching courses in Agricultural Economics and Rural appraisal. Participated in a number of research projects including 24 project funded by the European Union, 4 of which were coordinated by Davide (CAP-IRE and CLAIM in FP7, PROVIDE and CONSOLE in H2020). The main research themes concern the common agricultural policy (CAP), the Bioeconomy, innovation in agriculture, the economics and management of water resources and the evaluation of agri-environmental schemes.

Members (15)

M. Raggi
  • University of Bologna
Stefano Targetti
  • University of Bologna
Anastasio J. Villanueva
  • Institute of Agricultural Research and Training (IFAPA)
Francesco Galioto
  • Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economy Analysis
Matteo Zavalloni
  • University of Bologna
Laura Sardonini
  • University of Bologna
David Cuming
  • University of Bologna
Riccardo D'Alberto
  • University of Bologna