© 2025 Author(s). Open access article published, except where otherwise noted, by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License for content and CC0 1.0 Universal for metadata. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Bio-based and Applied Economics BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 Citation: Arfini, F., Bartolini, F., Car- bone, A., Castellotti, T., Coderoni, S., Cortignani, R., D’Annolfo, R., Dara Guccione, G., Donati, M., Galli, F., Henke, R., Mazzocchi, G., Montele- one, A., Raggi, M., Pesce, A., Pupo D’Andrea, M. R., Rocchi, B., Romano, D., Sardone, R., Sotte, F., Targetti, S., Zumpano, C., & Ciliberti, S. (2025). Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP. Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14. doi: 10.36253/bae- 18042 Received: June 15, 2025 Accepted: July 23, 2025 Published: September 30, 2025 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Oriana Gava. Policy Paper Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP Filippo Arfini1,*, Fabio Bartolini2, Anna Carbone3, Tatiana Castellotti4, Silvia Coderoni5, Raffaele Cortignani6, Raffaele D’Annolfo4, Giovanni Dara Guccione4, Michele Donati1, Francesca Galli7, Roberto Henke4, Giampiero Mazzocchi4, Alessandro Monteleone4, Meri Raggi8, Alessandra Pesce4, Maria Rosaria Pupo D’Andrea4, Benedetto Rocchi9, Donato Romano9, Roberta Sardone4, Franco Sotte10, Stefano Targetti8, Catia Zumpano4 1 Università di Parma, Italy 2 Università di Ferrara, Italy 3 Unimercatorum, Italy 4 CREA – Centro di ricerca Politiche e bioeconomia, Italy 5 Università di Teramo, Italy 6 Università della Tuscia, Italy 7 Università di Pisa, Italy 8 Università di Bologna, Italy 9 Università di Firenze, Italy 10 Socio emerito AIEAA, Italy *Corresponding author. E-mail: filippo.arfini@unipr.it Abstract. In early 2025, the European Union launched a new phase of dialogue on the future of agricultural and food policies, aiming to move beyond the sustainability-cen- tred narratives of the Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy. The initiative, grounded in the “Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture” and the Commission’s com- munication “A Vision for Agriculture and Food,” reframes the role of agriculture within a broader geopolitical and socio-economic context. The Italian Council for Agricultur- al Research and Analysis of the Agricultural Economy and the Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics convened a study day to examine the relevance and the implications of the EU’s Vision for Italy. This paper presents a synthesis of the discussions and reflections, structured along four thematic pillars: economic, environ- mental, social, and institutional sustainability. The analysis highlights the structural weaknesses of Italian agriculture, the need for circular and diversified agricultural systems, the integration of agroecological and climate resilience strategies with com- petitiveness, the need for generational and social renewal, and the necessity for politi- cal reflection on the adequacy of the Italian agricultural policy governance system. By capturing the perspectives of researchers and academics, the paper contributes to the national debate on reshaping EU agricultural policy beyond 2027. Keywords: Italian agriculture, CAP reform, sustainability, multiannual financial framework. JEL codes: Q01, Q18. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://www.fupress.com/bae https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-18042 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-18042 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-18042 mailto:filippo.arfini@unipr.it 6 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 F. Arfini et al. 1. INTRODUCTION Between the end of last year and the beginning of 2025, the European Union launched a new phase of debate around the future of policies for the agricultural and agrifood sectors. This latest phase aims to carry the strongly sustainability-focused approach - which had inspired the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy - into a different perspective, in which the sectoral chal- lenges are placed in a drastically changed global context and pursue the ambition of making the agricultural sec- tor more attractive and responsive to the expectations of stakeholders. The guidelines and recommendations for this new phase were outlined in the “Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture”, a document resulting from a working group comprising approximately 30 Euro- pean stakeholders from the agri-food sector, civil soci- ety, rural communities, and academia. The requests that emerged were taken up by the EU Commission with the publication of a strategic document, “A Vision for Agri- culture and Food. Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations”, which placed the issue of agricultural policy renewal within a more ambitious agenda for food and the future of rural areas. A renewal program, based on further in-depth papers related to many unresolved issues, will be introduced in the coming months of 2025, with new emerging themes added. The strategic vision document closes with an exhor- tation from the EU Commission, which “…invites the European Parliament, the Council, the European Econom- ic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the social partners and all stakeholders to actively con- tribute to the development and delivery of the initiatives in this Communication.”. CREA – Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy and AIEAA (Asso- ciazione Italiana di Economia Agraria e Applicata) joint- ly took up this idea and organised a study day, which took place in Rome on 3rd April 2025. More than twenty researchers, both academic and non-academic, experts in the various topics at the centre of the recent docu- ments, actively participated in the event. The work began with two general overview speech- es: the first provided an in-depth analysis of the specifi- cities of the Italian production system, drawing on the detailed sectoral analysis carried out by CREA PB in its Yearbook of Italian Agriculture (CREA, 2024); the sec- ond offered a reasoned summary of the contents of the EU Strategic Vision document. Then, the discussion was organised into four thematic tables, each focused on a dimension of sustainability — economic, environmental, social, and institutional — with as many coordinators as needed to guide the participants through a structured discussion on the issues of most significant relevance to Italy’s national context. The results and reflections arising from the debate are briefly reported in the following Sections, which rep- resent a first contribution to the internal discussion on the future of agricultural and food policies, by a compo- nent of the Italian research world. 2. THE CAP POST-2027 IN THE VISION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION On February 19, 2025, the European Commission presented the Communication “A Vision for Agriculture and Food,” outlining a roadmap to 2040 that ensures future policies align with this Vision (European Com- mission, 2025a). The document sets the direction and outlines principles closely aligned with the recom- mendations of the Strategic Dialogue (2024), while also being strongly influenced by other strategic documents regarding the European Union’s (EU) competitiveness, its repositioning in the changing global geo-economic and geopolitical context, and its capacity to respond to crises (Draghi, 2024; Niinistö, 2024; Letta, 2023; Spain’s National Office of Foresight and Strategy, 2023). The document was highly anticipated, as it tradi- tionally outlines the Commission’s orientations for the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) at the mid-point of the programming period. This was also the case in 2017, when the Communication (European Commission, 2017) paved the way for the New Delivery Model and CAP National Strategic Plans (NSP). In that document, the CAP was the focus, but agriculture and the broader agri-food system were largely absent from the debate on the future of the EU, except in budgetary issues. In 2025, by contrast, agriculture and food pro- duction are at the heart of the EU’s political agenda, as they are considered strategic for maintaining economic and social stability, ensuring food security in times of crisis, and guaranteeing European food sovereignty. The Vision is therefore dedicated to securing their long-term competitiveness and sustainability, with the CAP being just one of several policies contributing to these goals, often not even the most important one. The document focuses on four fundamental prior- ity areas, which correspond to the three classic pillars of sustainability – economic, environmental, and social (the latter enriched by the food component) – alongside a fourth area focused on the sector’s competitiveness and resilience. Generational renewal and innovation 7Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 are cross-cutting themes throughout the Communica- tion, with the former being a long-term priority due to the ageing farming population, and the latter a support- ing element to facilitate a sustainable transition. Regard- ing sustainability, the document emphasises the need to integrate both economic challenges and ensure a socially just transition into the ecological transition, highlight- ing the importance of circular sustainability. According to this approach, environmental and economic sustain- ability enable the sector to remain competitive and meet society’s expectations regarding food safety, food secu- rity, quality, vitality of rural areas, preservation of local cultures and traditions, animal welfare, and other relat- ed concerns. In the priority area dedicated to economic sustain- ability, the most significant references to the CAP can be found. The document confirms the need to continue providing farmers with income support that should be more targeted and fairer, capable of attracting young and new farmers. Support should be more focused on farm- ers actively engaged in food production (with priority given to the production of agricultural products essen- tial for the EU’s strategic autonomy and resilience), on the economic vitality of farms, and on environmental protection. Furthermore, the document emphasises the need to streamline and simplify payments for ecosystem services, as well as to simplify conditionality by shifting from conditions to incentives, rewarding farmers who exceed mandatory requirements. However, there are not enough details to clarify how all this will impact the green architecture of the current CAP (which is not even mentioned in the document) or the resources required to remunerate farmers. The document also touches on the issue of flexibility – both for farmers, in defining practic- es best suited to their farms and contexts, and for Mem- ber States, in achieving the objectives of the post-2027 CAP. The second priority area, focused on competitive- ness, aims to ensure European food sovereignty by reducing critical dependencies (such as proteins, raw materials, and fertilisers), promoting fairer global com- petition, avoiding situations where European standards on food safety and sustainability place the EU at a dis- advantage and lead to a loss of competitiveness, and strengthening EU’s ability to respond to crises. The priority area dedicated to environmental sus- tainability outlines the agricultural sector’s contribution to the EU’s 2040 climate target, considering its specific characteristics and the need to ensure both competitive- ness and food security. In the fourth priority area, focused on social sustainability, the document highlights the need to strengthen synergies and complementarities between the CAP and other policies, including the Cohesion policy, to provide adequate support and tangible impact in rural areas through integrated planning and implementation efforts. This aspect becomes particularly relevant when considered in light of the Communication on the future Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) (European Commission, 2025b). In that document, the current budget structure, based on spending programs rather than policies, is shown to cause delays in planning and expenditure, as well as overlaps and gaps due to the lack of coordinated strategies for cross-cutting priorities. Therefore, the MFF Communication proposes a coun- try-level plan focused on common priorities, including promoting economic, social, and territorial cohesion, as well as implementing key reforms and investments. Reading the two documents together reveals a desire for greater integration between Rural Development Policy and Cohesion Policy, although the extent of such inte- gration, particularly in terms of policy autonomy, fund- ing, and the role of public administrations, remains to be determined. The Vision does not propose solutions but provides a broad overview of the transformations agriculture needs, promoting ongoing dialogue among stakehold- ers, institutions, and civil society, along with a combina- tion of policies and institutional levels. It implicitly calls for the need, without explicitly naming it, for horizontal governance (among institutions at the same level with responsibilities over different policies) and vertical gov- ernance (among several institutions with responsibilities over the same policy) (Coderoni, 2023). 3. POINTS OF VIEW ABOUT ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY The economic sustainability of the entire Italian agri-food system depends on both macro and micro aspects of the national system, including the structural characterisation of Italian agriculture and the strong trade interconnections within and outside Europe. These aspects depend on the ability to guarantee income, adequately remunerate production factors, ensure com- petitiveness, and employ workers. Among the various aspects that determine and influence economic sustain- ability, those relating to the international scenario and risk management are worth closer examination. The economic sustainability of the entire Italian agri-food system strongly depends on the evolution of the international scenario in two interconnected aspects: one external and one internal to the Italian country sys- 8 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 F. Arfini et al. tem. On the external side, Italian agriculture finds itself in the peculiar situation of being dependent on foreign markets for specific strategic production inputs (such as chemical inputs, soy, etc.). At the same time, the food industry exports high-quality, simple, and processed products, such as those with geographical indications, whose production cannot be outsourced (CREA, 2024). This situation has been achieved thanks to the advantag- es derived from the European Single Market, as well as a general climate of institutional and market stability, with the world’s leading countries considered Italy’s com- mercial partners. It is evident that situations of financial instability - linked to exchange rates -, economic insta- bility - linked to tariffs -, or institutional instability - tied to unclear or no longer perceived as clear market govern- ance rules - lead to repercussions that result in increased production costs, strain on the domestic market, and a decrease in prices and agricultural incomes. On the internal side, within the Italian country system, the economic variables of the primary sector highlight that the profitability of land and labour has remained almost stable over the last decade, with only slight increases during the post-COVID years. These weak increases are less significant, especially on small- sized farms, due to the tensions recorded on internation- al price markets, confirming that, despite the national production model’s backbone being found in small- sized farms, the latter continue to be more vulnerable. The economic sustainability of the agricultural system, therefore, is closely linked to the structural dimension of farm holders’ companies. Addressing this challenge also includes promoting generational turnover initiatives. In our country, the process of ageing has not suffered any setbacks in recent years, with a group of entrepreneurs over 60 years of age that largely exceeds that of entrepre- neurs under 40 (CREA, 2024). Considering these structural aspects of the agricul- tural production system, the organisational and coor- dination capacity of value chains is becoming increas- ingly important not only to define production quantities and selling prices, but especially to define quality levels aligned with the global market and to bring in financial and human resources capable of supporting innovation processes and the management of commercial strate- gies in both domestic and international markets (CREA, 2024). From this perspective, the Italian agri-food sys- tem is highly complex, encompassing businesses that vary in terms of ownership, corporate form, and strat- egy. Cooperative enterprises, family-owned companies, and multinationals compete in national and interna- tional markets. These latter companies have acquired all or part of the corporate structure of many Italian food companies, influencing the behaviour of the value chains they are part of, including their internationalisation strategies. The economic sustainability of the Italian agri-food system increasingly depends on developing an efficient and modern industrial relations system, capable of pro- viding timely guidance to supply chains and their opera- tors. In this regard, forms of supply chain management related to inter-professional organisations would guaran- tee a management capacity suitable to face the economic challenges stemming from market instability and those arising from climate change, which, in turn, are embed- ded in international dynamics. In a context marked by extreme weather events, market crises, and geopolitical instability, strengthen- ing the resilience of Italian farms has become a priority. Two strategic levers in this direction are diversification and circularity. Diversification involves two main strate- gies. First, expanding the range of cultivated crops, for example, by introducing legumes or oilseeds such as sunflowers and rapeseed, can help better cope with the effects of climate change. Second, developing alternative sources of income for farmers, such as renewable energy production, agritourism, and direct sales, to help stabi- lise incomes during periods of market volatility. At the same time, promoting nutrient circularity is essential to reduce farm costs and mitigate the environmental impact of chemical fertilisers. Encouraging the reuse of nitrogen-rich livestock manure, adopting precision agri- culture techniques, and integrating agroecological prac- tices into production cycles can enhance farm sustaina- bility and reduce reliance on imported fertilisers. Invest- ing in diversification and circularity means building a more resilient and sustainable agricultural system that cannot only cope with external shocks but also adapt and evolve. 4. POINTS OF VIEW ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The environmental dimension of sustainability is, in some respects, the most delicate as it implies negotiation and interaction between several actors (farmers and citi- zens) in managing different aspects that impact the envi- ronment and society itself. Even though the CAP in the past has introduced actions that go in the direction of creating a more environmentally sustainable production model, there are still numerous areas of intervention that include the adoption of more sustainable agricul- tural practices, the maintenance of high levels of biodi- 9Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 versity, the reduction of greenhouse gases, and the main- tenance of certain limiting production factors (i.e. water, soil, inputs). The Vision document foresees achieving a higher level of environmental sustainability as a function of Science’s ability to provide answers and develop inter- ventions in several areas, including technological inno- vation, the evolution of agricultural production mod- els, the development of supporting infrastructures, and increased consumer awareness. The ongoing decline in biodiversity and accelerat- ing climate change constitute one of the most pressing environmental challenges facing society. Despite sig- nificant financial resources allocated to environmental objectives, the effectiveness of EU agri-environmental and climate schemes in mitigating agriculture’s impact on biodiversity remains questionable (Pe’er et al., 2022). In Italy, this situation highlights the need for innova- tive contractual solutions to improve policy efficiency. Among the most promising approaches are result-based schemes, in which farmers receive payments contingent upon achieving environmental outcomes, and collec- tive approaches, in which groups of farmers commit to shared targets (Targetti et al., 2024). Nevertheless, key considerations include their capacity to attract private investment, the availability of enabling technologies, and the complexity they may entail. In Italy, the agroecological transition requires a strong commitment from farmers, supported by robust institutional frameworks. Beyond the mere adoption of agroecological practices at farm and food system levels, it is essential to invest in training, advisory ser- vices, and knowledge exchange networks (Wezel, 2015). Reinforcing territorial governance mechanisms, such as Bio-Districts, and integrating local knowledge systems are also crucial (Dara Guccione et al., 2024). In light of the water crisis, agroecology presents a pivotal strategy for enhancing climate resilience. Therefore, full integra- tion of agroecology within Italy’s CAP NSP, with tar- geted support for Bio-districts and sustainable resource management, is essential. Despite the great emphasis on agroecology and Bio-districts and their potential con- tribution to a more sustainable agriculture, it must be admitted that this is a residual system in the Italian agri- cultural landscape, still far from becoming a reference model for many Italian farmers. Although agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- sions in Italy have declined by 19% since 1990 (CREA, 2024), this reduction is mainly attributable to decreased production levels (Baldoni et al., 2017). Greater ambi- tion in mitigation efforts is therefore required to attain climate neutrality without compromising productiv- ity (Coderoni, 2023). Beyond the CAP, innovative policy instruments are being considered. The EU Regulation on carbon removals and carbon farming establishes qual- ity criteria for certifying carbon credits generated from agricultural soils and forests, potentially stimulating voluntary carbon markets through private finance. Simi- larly, the introduction of an agricultural Emission Trad- ing System, although highly questioned (Copa-Cogeca, 2024), could apply the polluter-pays principle within the sector, reducing emissions cost-effectively. In this con- text, Italy’s availability of farm-level GHG estimates from FADN data (Coderoni & Vanino, 2022) could facilitate the identification of mitigation hot spots for targeted interventions, such as those supported by the Agrifood Just Transition Fund. Soil health, a long-standing concern, has recently regained prominence through the EU’s Soil Strategy, particularly via the Soil Deal and Soil Mission, which aims to reverse degradation currently affecting approxi- mately two-thirds of EU soils. In Italy, pressing concerns include soil erosion, depletion of organic matter, biodi- versity loss, and nutrient runoff. However, significant obstacles persist, including the dispersion of incentives across CAP measures, structural transformations within the sector, and institutional inadequacies (Winkler et al., 2025). Dairy livestock farming represents a key sector in the decarbonisation agenda and is undergoing substan- tial transformation due to evolving consumption pat- terns and growing demand for sustainable dairy prod- ucts (Coderoni, 2023). Although climate-smart innova- tions, such as robotic feeding systems, are enhancing efficiency, challenges remain concerning production standards and reliance on imported feed. Additionally, there is concern regarding the potential redistribution of costs along the supply chain under emerging policy regimes (Huber, 2024). Agriculture is inherently circular, traditionally reusing by-products such as manure to maintain and enhance soil fertility. Beyond internal recycling, the sec- tor holds significant potential to strengthen circularity through cross-sectoral synergies. Fertiliser use remains a primary environmental concern, accounting for approximately one-third of agriculture’s CO₂ emissions and depending heavily on scarce and unevenly distrib- uted natural resources. In response, the EU Regulation 2019/1009, which entered into force in 2022, promotes the use of organic and waste-derived fertilisers as part of a broader strategy to support sustainable agriculture. Nevertheless, adopting such alternatives remains limited, hindered by perceived high costs, concerns regarding potential contaminants, and cultural resistance (Ron- zon et al., 2024). Facilitating this transition requires the 10 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 F. Arfini et al. development of industrial symbiosis initiatives, sup- ported by policy instruments such as the EU’s Integrat- ed Nutrient Management Action Plan (Abitabile et al., 2025). Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Inno- vation Systems (AKIS) to enhance information dissemi- nation and farmer skills, alongside improved monitor- ing through tools such as the Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN), is crucial for fostering a more circular and resilient agricultural sector. 5. POINTS OF VIEW ABOUT SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Social sustainability lastly entered the debate on the European Union’s agricultural policies. It is encouraging that this issue is now being addressed more concretely. In the Strategic Dialogue, seven principles address social sustainability, a significant step forward. Additionally, the Vision emphasises the importance of this topic, par- ticularly in the context of generational renewal, which is seen as essential for the vitality of agriculture and rural areas. This is welcome news in Italy, where the issue is particularly acute (Carbone et al., 2024). It is also prom- ising that the focus shifts from young to new entrants. Many young beneficiaries would likely enter farming anyway, while others seek to enter later in life, bringing valuable skills, capital, and networks. New entrants, regardless of age, face land access issues, especially in densely populated Italy. Therefore, the mention of a European Observatory on Farmland is a positive development. Lack of infrastructure and ser- vices also prevents entries; thus, the broader, non-secto- ral approach is a welcome development. We now await the Generational Renewal Strategy, as promised by 2025. For Italy, promoting and enhancing social sustain- ability involves engaging with various aspects of agri- culture and the food chain. Knowledge and skills are among the challenges recognised in the Dialogue as an opportunity to expand farmers’ lifelong learning and revitalise extension services. Moreover, another chal- lenge in the Vision document concerns “Building an attractive sector that ensures a fair standard of living and leverages new income opportunities”. A focus on generational and entrepreneurial renewal should also consider the social diversity of the Italian agricultural system. Farming income contributes to the welfare of diverse entrepreneurs to varying extents. Farmers man- aging large holdings often belong to the highest income deciles. Small and medium farms, conversely, typically represent only one among several income sources for farming families, rather than being the primary one (Marino et al., 2024). Small and medium-sized activi- ties still involve a significant number of people. In some rural contexts, they play a relevant social role, providing employment. Their support is likely to generate valuable social outcomes. However, the attractiveness of agricul- ture for small and medium-sized farms, as well as for young people and new entrants, strongly depends on the rural context in which they operate. More than direct farm income support, these farmers would need meas- ures targeted at promoting farm business diversifica- tion, enabling household livelihood strategies based on «pluri-activity», simplifying bureaucracy in farm man- agement, and promoting horizontal cooperation in mar- keting farm produce. Social sustainability in Italian agriculture also requires a critical acknowledgement and systematic response to the economic and social inequalities embed- ded throughout the agri-food supply chain. These dis- parities disproportionately affect women and migrant labourers and are often neglected or tacitly accepted, despite constituting deep-rooted structural challenges (Zumpano,2020; Corrado and Zumpano, 2021). Thus far, the CAP has largely overlooked the social dimension, offering only broad, non-binding recommendations con- cerning gender equality, without establishing enforceable commitments (Zumpano, 2021). In the domain of labour rights, intervention has been limited to sanction-based mechanisms, which have proven insufficient and largely ineffective (Canfora & Leccese, 2022). The analysis of recent EU policy documents reveals little progress on these issues, particularly in terms of proposals. Persist- ing in this limited approach risks exacerbating rural decline, as individuals increasingly disengage from agri- cultural work and abandon rural territories. Building on the advances made in the CAP’s environmental dimen- sion, there is a need to support methodological frame- works that embed social sustainability into agricultural policy through the implementation of fairness schemes. Another topic focused on the strategic dialogue is “Making the healthy and sustainable choice the easy one.” This topic extends beyond the agricultural sector and encompasses the broader food system, aligning with the European Commission’s recommendations (SAPEA, 2023). Appealing to consumers’ rationality is not enough. Different dimensions of the “ food environment” need to be addressed to promote sustainable consump- tion. From a systemic perspective, four key aspects are of central importance: nutrition and diet, consumer infor- mation, public food procurement and the response to food poverty. Regarding the first aspect, Italy can valor- ise the heritage value of the Mediterranean diet (Dernini & Capone, 2024). However, it must deal with the decline in adherence and the rise in obesity, which raises the 11Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 question of who should lead the change and with what incentives. In terms of information, the main challenge for sustainability labelling is to strike a balance between simplicity and comprehensiveness, considering the vari- ous social dimensions of sustainability (ranging from nutritional value to supply chain equity to animal wel- fare, etc.) (Sanye Mengual et al., 2024). Public procure- ment of food plays a strategic role in education and mar- ket orientation; however, the key issue remains defining effective sustainability criteria, which is the subject of ongoing debate (European Commission, 2024). Italy is widely recognised for its excellence in this area through the CAM (Minimum Environmental Criteria), which integrates environmental, territorial, and social sustain- ability criteria into public catering tenders. A widely shared call is to strengthen food literacy, meaning navi- gating a highly complex food environment. Finally, the importance of solidarity networks, such as food banks, is recognised to actively support food systems in address- ing emergency food insecurity situations, provided that such networks are supported by appropriate policies (Galli et al., 2018). However, the role of agriculture and rural areas is often nuanced or neglected (Mazzocchi et al., 2023). The reference to food waste remains rather vague: in the Vision, it is mentioned only once, without any spe- cific target, merely as a general commitment to continue existing initiatives. This is problematic because the com- mercial dynamics that drive food waste behaviours are not recognised. The introduction of elements that lead to consider- ing agriculture in its social aspects, along with explicit measures, is a novelty that should be welcomed in the Italian agricultural landscape. However, the concrete impact of these measures depends on elements that require an evident willingness on the part of national policymakers to implement them. 6. POINTS OF VIEW ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY Both the Strategic Dialogue and the Vision have highlighted some common elements that may influence the future policy governance for the agricultural sector and rural areas. First, budget simplification of the Multi- Annual Financial Framework (MFF) may require estab- lishing a single fund for development policies and a plan for each country, which would contain key reforms and investments focused on common priorities. Second, CAP is still a central tool for achieving the objectives of competitiveness and sustainability of the agricultural sector and rural areas. However, it should improve coordination with other policies to achieve a synergistic and more effective contribution (Coderoni, 2023). Third, CAP’s strategic approach to programming is still valid. However, some implementation mechanisms need to be simplified, while at the same time strengthen- ing a target approach and the responsibility of Member States to ensure achievement of the set targets. Finally, Cooperation with stakeholders needs to be improved at all stages of the programming cycle. The discussion on institutional sustainability, how- ever, must start with an analysis of the governance of programming, management and evaluation of the three main policy instruments that directly or indirectly affect the agricultural sector and rural areas in the 2023-2027 programming period: the CAP NSP, the National Recov- ery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) and the Partnership Agreement for Cohesion Policy. The CAP NSP, which introduced unitary and national “program” for Pillar I and Pillar II and influ- enced the way interventions are programmed, consulted and approved, opening a broad debate on the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Regions and the pay- ing agencies as Managing Authorities and in monitor- ing and evaluation responsibilities, necessitating the set- ting up of new coordinating “bodies”. At the same time, the new objectives introduced with the “Farm to Fork” Strategy, new instruments (eco-schemes and social con- ditionality), the strengthening of bottom-up approaches, and mechanisms for performance assessment have intro- duced new actors and new “institutional” relationships. The NRRP provided for “agricultural” interventions managed directly by the Ministry of Agriculture and other National administrations, firmly integrated with the NSP, but with different implementation and perfor- mance evaluation modalities and not always fully coor- dinated with CAP interventions. Finally, the Partnership Agreement for Cohesion Policy provides for several national and regional inter- ventions complementary to the CAP, in particular with regard to the development of inner areas, the promotion of human capital and environmental protection. Nev- ertheless, no formal coordination mechanism has been foreseen to ensure effective integration at territorial level. A crucial aspect highlighted by the documents under the scanner is the stakeholders’ dialogue: a process inno- vation tested for the first time in the CAP NSP through the Partnership Table (Henke et al., 2024). Italy is rich in experiences in this regard, carried out by local admin- istrations collaborating with research institutions, the third sector, and private operators, through public par- 12 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 F. Arfini et al. ticipation mechanisms such as Food Councils, explicitly mentioned in the Vision. On all these aspects, the progress of these new pro- gramming tools, their coherence, and integration capac- ity need to be monitored. A comparison at the EU level of the Member States’ capacity to respond to the unitary programming inherent in the PSP would also be valu- able and desirable. The thematic discussion on institutional sustain- ability highlighted some assessments for possible Reform scenarios. A first element concerns the CAP’s separation from other policies. From a strategic point of view, the Single Fund hypothesised in the budget reform could make it possible to improve the integration of the agri- cultural sector into the economic system on fundamen- tal issues such as food, environment, land, and food security, where the complementary action of policies could be fundamental. The issue of the Single Fund is central, both because of the risks of resource loss for the sector and due to its effects on delivery mechanisms and performance assessment, which are already complex and impact policies in various ways. Participants in the discussion emphasised the need to change the approach and orient the CAP and future policies towards: i) tai- lored and targeted policies, given the heterogeneity of the recipients, with the need to accompany these pro- cesses with practical tools for evaluating results rather than inputs and performance; and ii) forward-looking aid oriented towards rewarding behaviour that can gen- erate structural changes in the system, overcoming back- wards-looking payments that tend to sustain the status quo and widen inequalities. The other evidence that emerges from the discus- sion is the gap between the vision of agriculture, the relationship with traditional challenges (environmen- tal sustainability, generational change, innovation) and that with the new challenges (food, health, labour, trade) and the role of incentive and regulation policies as opposed to “softer” forms of policies that are more suited to interventions in the more downstream components of the food system (education, information, transpar- ency, addressing a proper food literacy, as advocated in the Strategic Dialogue). The tendency is to focus solely on the CAP, but it is necessary to discuss policies more broadly, to consider possible new beneficiaries, how to avoid conflicts between different objectives, and how to leverage synergies between actors. Given the above scenario, especially for Italy, it becomes crucial to discuss the role of institutional actors involved and how these new processes can be governed within the already complex governance of policies due to the requirement of the Italian Constitution, which considers the Administrative Regions as responsible for setting up their regional policy for agriculture. Thus, in terms of institutional sustainability, there emerges the need to question how the national system should organ- ise itself at the central level to interpret, measure and evaluate the system proposed to us by the EU, in terms of: i) integration and coherence of policies, in particu- lar by looking at the programming tools that we have used in this programming, also with a comparison at the European level, and of the possible tools that may be proposed; ii) analysis of the trade-offs between the dif- ferent objectives - inclusiveness, sustainability, produc- tivity, resilience - and the visions of the different stake- holders; and iii) systematic implementation of mecha- nisms for evaluating policies, to allow real learning on the effectiveness and efficiency of the various interven- tions to achieve the set objectives. The new European agricultural policy is undoubt- edly more complex in terms of its political objectives and the inclusion of new stakeholders in the decision-making process. This increases the complexity of the govern- ance process, requiring public decision-makers to have a greater capacity to understand the diverse needs of various stakeholders and, consequently, to allocate funds effectively. Given the current European context, which includes the prospect of a potential reduction in CAP funds, the vision of the political re-evaluation of the entire governance structure of Italian agricultural policy also becomes relevant. REFERENCES Abitabile, C., Arzeni, A., Cisilino, F., & Orlando, M. (2024). Building sustainable futures: the bio-based fertilizer case-study. Bio-Based and Applied Econom- ics 14(1): 3-17. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15786 Baldoni, E., Coderoni, S., Esposti, R. (2017). The pro- ductivity and environment nexus through farm-level data. The Case of Carbon Footprint applied to Ital- ian FADN farms. Bio-based and Applied Economics 6(2): 119-137. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-19112 Canfora, I., Leccese, VS. (2024). Social Sustainability as the Milestone for a Sustainable Food System: The Essential Role of People Working in Agriculture. European Journal of Risk Regulation 15(2): 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.27 Carbone, A., Carillo, F., Ciaian, P., Sardone, R., Antonio- li, F., Cardona, J.T. (2024). Does the European Union Start-Up Aid Help Young Farmers to Innovate and to Join Networks? Agriculture 14: 1772. https://doi. org/10.3390/agriculture14101772 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15786 https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-19112 https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.27 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101772 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101772 13Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 Coderoni, S. (2023). Key policy objectives for Euro- pean agricultural policies: Some reflections on policy coherence and governance issues. Bio-based and Applied Economics 12(2): 85-101. https://doi. org/10.36253/bae-13971 Coderoni, S., Vanino, S. (2022). The farm-by-farm relationship among carbon productivity and eco- nomic performance of agriculture. Science of the Total Environment 819(2022): 153103. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153103 Copa-Cogeca (2024). Reflection Paper on an Agri-Food Emissions Trading System (AgETS). Exploratory Study, Brussels, September 2024 Corrado A., Zumpano C. (2021). Migration, agricul- ture and rurality: dynamics, experiences and poli- cies in Europe. REA Monographic Number 76(1). https://oajournals.fupress.net/index.php/rea/issue/ view/535 CREA (2024), Annuario agricoltura italiana 2023, Vol- ume LXXVII, CREA, Roma, Dicembre, https://www. crea.gov.it/web/politiche-e-bioeconomia/-/annuario- dell-agricoltura-italiana Dara Guccione, G., Viganò, L., Sturla, A., Vaccaro, A., Colombo, L., Pirelli, T., & Varia, F. (2024). Insights into the agroecological transition: the case of two Italian bio-districts. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics 79(1): 97-111. https://doi.org/10.36253/ rea-14241 Dernini S., Capone R. (eds) (2024). Sustainable food sys- tems. Change of route in the Mediterranean. Valen- zano, CIHEAM, Bari. Draghi, M. (2025). The future of European competitive- ness. Part A – A competitiveness strategy for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the Europe- an Union, ISBN 978-92-68-22716-9, https://doi. org/10.2872/1823372 European Commission (2025a), A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations, COM(2025) 75 final, Brussels, 19.2.2025. European Commission (2025b), The road to the next multiannual financial framework, COM(2025) 46 final, Strasbourg, 11.2.2025. European Commission (2017), The Future of Food and Farming, COM(2017) 713 final, Brussels, 29.11.2017. European Parliament, European Council (2019). Regu- lation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 Laying down Rules on the Making Available on the Market of EU Fertilising Products and Amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and Repeal- ing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 Galli, F., Hebinck, A., Carroll, B. (2018). Addressing food poverty in systems: governance of food assistance in three European countries. Food Security 10: 1353- 1370. Garcia Herrero, L., Casonato, C., Perez Cornago, A., Sanye Mengual, E., Sarasa Renedo, A. et al. (2022). Overview and analysis of sustainable product pro- curement criteria in the EU food sector. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa. eu/doi/10.2760/1286793 Grizzetti, B., Vigiak, O., Aguilera, E., Aloe, A., Biganzoli, F., Billen, G., Caldeira, C., de Meij, A., Egle, L., Ein- arsson, R., Garnier, J., Gingrich, S., Hristov, J., Huy- gens, D., Koeble, R., Lassaletta, L., Le Noë, J., Lia- kos, L., Lugato, E., Panagos, P., Pisoni, E., Pistocchi, A., Sanz Cobeña, A., Udias, A., Weiss, F., Wilson, J.,Zanni, M. (2022). Knowledge for Integrated Nutri- ent Management Action Plan (INMAP). https:// publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/ JRC129059/JRC129059_01.pdf Henke R., Pomponi T., Vassallo M., Mazzocchi G., Mon- teleone A., Sorrentino A. (2024). The New CAP and the Participative Method in Decision-Making: A Tex- tual Analysis of the Italian Case. Journal of Common Market Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13703 Huber, R., El Benni, N., Finger, R. (2024). Lessons learned and policy implications from 20 years of Swiss agricultural policy reforms: A review of poli- cy evaluations. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 13(2): 121-146. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14214 Letta, E. (2023). Much more than a market – Speed, security, solidarity. Empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens, April. Marino, M., Rocchi, B., Severini, S. (2024). Assessing the Farm–Nonfarm Households’ Income Gap along the Income Distribution in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 62(2): 318-340. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13494 Mazzocchi, G., Giarè, F., Sardone, R., Manetti, I., Henke, R., Giuca, S., Borsotto, P. (2024). Food(di)lemmas: disentangling the Italian Local Food Policy narra- tives. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics (REA) 78(3): 19-34. https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-14511 Niinistö, S. (2024). Safer Together: Strengthening Europe’s Civilian and Military Preparedness and Readiness. available at https://civil-protection- knowledge-network.europa.eu/media/safer-together- strengthening-europes-civilian-and-military-prepar- edness-and-readiness, verified on 22/07/2025. Pe’er, G., Finn, J.A., Díaz, M., Birkenstock, M., Lakner, S., Röder, N., Kazakova, Y., Šumrada, T., Bezák,P., https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-13971 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-13971 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153103 https://oajournals.fupress.net/index.php/rea/issue/view/535 https://oajournals.fupress.net/index.php/rea/issue/view/535 https://www.crea.gov.it/web/politiche-e-bioeconomia/-/annuario-dell-agricoltura-italiana https://www.crea.gov.it/web/politiche-e-bioeconomia/-/annuario-dell-agricoltura-italiana https://www.crea.gov.it/web/politiche-e-bioeconomia/-/annuario-dell-agricoltura-italiana https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-14241 https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-14241 https://doi.org/10.2872/1823372 https://doi.org/10.2872/1823372 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/1286793 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/1286793 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC129059/JRC129059_01.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC129059/JRC129059_01.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC129059/JRC129059_01.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13703 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14214 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13494 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13494 https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-14511 https://civil-protection-knowledge-network.europa.eu/media/safer-together-strengthening-europes-civilian-and-military-preparedness-and-readiness https://civil-protection-knowledge-network.europa.eu/media/safer-together-strengthening-europes-civilian-and-military-preparedness-and-readiness https://civil-protection-knowledge-network.europa.eu/media/safer-together-strengthening-europes-civilian-and-military-preparedness-and-readiness https://civil-protection-knowledge-network.europa.eu/media/safer-together-strengthening-europes-civilian-and-military-preparedness-and-readiness 14 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 5-14, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-18042 F. Arfini et al. Concepción, E.D., Dänhardt, J., Morales, M.B., Rac, I., Špulerová, J., Schindler, S., Stavrinides, M., Targetti, S., Viaggi, D., Vogiatzakis, I. N., & Guy- omard, H. (2022). How can the European Com- mon Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts. Conserva- tion Letters 15: e12901. https://doi.org/10.1111/ conl.12901 Ronzon, T., Gurria, P., Carus, M., Cingiz, K., El-Meligi, A., Hark, N., Iost, S., M’Barek, R., Philippidis, G., van Leeuwen, M., & Wesseler, J. (2024). Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added meas- urements. Bio-Based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14563 Sanye Mengual, E., Boschiero, M., Leite, J., Casonato, C., Fiorese, G., Mancini, L., Sinkko T., Wollgast, J., Listorti, G. and Sala, S. (2024), Sustainability label- ling in the EU food sector: current status and cov- erage of sustainability aspects. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi. org/10.2760/90191 Science Advice for Policy by European Academies - SAPEA (2023). Towards sustainable food consump- tion. Berlin: SAPEA. https://doi.org/10.5281/zeno- do.8031939 Spain’s National Office of Foresight and Strategy (2023). Resilient EU 2030. A future-oriented approach to reinforce the EU’s Open Strategic Autonomy and Global Leadership. Strategic dialogue (2024). Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU Agriculture. A shared prospect for farm- ing and food in Europe. Brussels, August 29th 2024, available at the following url: https://agriculture. ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/main- initiatives-strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en Targetti, S., Niedermayr, A., Häfner, K., & Schaller, L. (2024). New pathways for improved delivery of pub- lic goods from agriculture and forestry. Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(1): 3-11. https://doi. org/10.36253/bae-15862 Wezel, A., Brives, H., Casagrande, M., Clément, C., Dufour, A., & Vandenbroucke, P. (2015). Agroecol- ogy territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation. Agroe- cology and Sustainable Food Systems 40(2): 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1115799 Winkler, G., Pagano, L., Vergamini, D., & Bartolini, F. (2024). Soils and ecosystem services: policy narra- tives and instruments for soil health in the EU. Bio- Based and Applied Economics 14(1): 79-92. https:// doi.org/10.36253/bae-15466 Zumpano C. (2020). Migrazioni, agricoltura e rural- ità. Politiche e percorsi per lo sviluppo dei territori, Rapporto di ricerca. Rete Rurale Nazionale/CREA, Roma. https://www.reterurale.it/flex /cm/pages/ ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/21203 Zumpano C. (2021), La nuova politica di sviluppo rurale deve essere un’opportunità anche di genere, Pian- etaPSR, n.107. https://www.pianetapsr.it/flex/cm/ pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2642 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12901 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12901 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14563 https://doi.org/10.2760/90191 https://doi.org/10.2760/90191 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8031939 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8031939 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/main-initiatives-strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/main-initiatives-strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/main-initiatives-strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15862 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15862 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1115799 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15466 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15466 https://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/21203 https://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/21203 https://www.pianetapsr.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2642 https://www.pianetapsr.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2642 Reflections and new directions: An editorial retrospective and the launch of our new Policy Paper section Silvia Coderoni, Fabio Bartolini Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP Filippo Arfini1*, Fabio Bartolini2, Anna Carbone3, Tatiana Castellotti4, Silvia Coderoni5, Raffaele Cortignani6, Raffaele D’Annolfo4, Giovanni Dara Guccione4, Michele Donati1, Francesca Galli7, Roberto Henke4, Giampiero Mazzocchi4, Alessandro Monteleone4, Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Giacomo Maria Rinaldi*, Davide Viaggi Impact of weather variability on crop yields and land use dynamics in Eastern India: Short- and long-term effects Pratap Kumar Jena1, Kirtti Ranjan Paltasingh2, Souryabrata Mohapatra3,,*, Ashok Mishra4 Rebuilding strategies for food self-sufficiency: Portugal’s past patterns and future ambitions Alexandre Macedo João1, Dulce Freire2, Humberto Rocha3, Joana Dias4 From subsidy to land rent: how production-linked payments shape factor remuneration in agriculture Adrian Sadłowski Expenditure allocation for Rural Development interventions: main trends and patterns in the choices of the Italian Regions under the CAP 2023-2027 Tobia Minuzzo, Francesco Pagliacci*