Reuse of reclaimed wastewater (RWW) in agriculture represents one of the key strategies to promote for reducing the pressures on water sources, as also fostered by the EU governance. Indeed, the European Regulation 741/2020 on water reuse, entered into force in 2023, was issued with the aim to extend the reuse of treated water in agriculture under safe conditions. It establishes the minimum quality requirements; it also foresees the possibility to add additional requirements, especially for contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), based on "scientific evidence" and the risk assessment. The present study aims at evaluating from both the technical and economic points of view the potential reuse of RWW for irrigating edible crops in a real case study, considering the requirements set by the EU Regulation 741/2020. The Rieti province in the Lazio region of Italy was selected as the case study, since its territory is devoted to agricultural activities which have an important economic impact (e.g. olive trees, potatoes and maize). Firstly, the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) here located were classified based upon the quality of the water produced with respect to the classes listed by the EU Regulation. Then, the nutrients and water demand of the crops grown in the same area were compared with the nutrients and water potentially available through the RWW from the WWTPs. Furthermore, a preliminary assessment was carried out considering only four selected CECs present in the RWW produced by the WWTPs. Combining the quality requirements set by EU Regulation and the results of the preliminary risk assessment, in the investigated territory, there are 17 WWTPs potentially suitable for the irrigation of maize, only 1 plant for potato and 8 plants for olive.

Soil plays a central role in the global carbon (C) cycle and the fight against climate change as it contains the largest existing organic C stock on earth. Natural processes exacerbated by climate change and unsustainable agricultural soil management practices are contributing to the steady decrease in organic C stocks in farmland. Carbon farming practices, underpinned by various incentives, can be used to maintain and increase C stocks in agricultural soils. Carbon credit mechanisms, that is, tradable credits each corresponding to one tonne of CO ₂ eq, are one such incentive. Carbon credits are issued upon the demonstration of increased soil C stocks over time through the application of C accounting methodologies for each agroecosystem and farming practice. This study presents a detailed and critical analysis of carbon credit methodologies, focusing on agricultural soil C in temperate zones, by comparing the European Commission proposal for a regulation on carbon removals with relevant certification frameworks implemented in extra‐European Union industrialized countries (Australia, Alberta in Canada, United States). Based on this, we recommend strengthening the European Commission proposal by (i) expanding the list of eligible agricultural practices, (ii) setting a minimum maintenance time frame for each agricultural practice and incentivizing longer duration, (iii) setting the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as a regulatory baseline, (iv) beyond the regulatory baseline, defining a farm level baseline in terms of carbon farming practices applied that can be monitored through the Integrated Administration and Control System of the CAP, (v) clarifying the interaction between the European Commission proposal of regulation and the CAP, the Soil Monitoring Law, and Land Use/Cover Area Frame Survey inventory, (vi) retaining a portion of unsold carbon credits as a buffer against the risk of reversal and (vii) applying a default discount to account for leakage risk if yield reductions are observed. We propose these recommendations to guarantee effective environmental protection, technical and bureaucratic feasibility as well as economic affordability for farmers.

Objective: Stakeholders—farmers from four different European areas (Campania (IT), Kujawsko-Pomorskie (PL), Limburg (NL), Andalusia (ES))—are asked to share, from the OPERA project, their opinions on five criteria that all aim at improving the use of irrigation advisory services (IASs). Each criterion has different characteristics that affect the way farmers rank it. The present study has two objectives. The first is to individuate the priorities of the preferences expressed by the stakeholders. The second objective is to carry out a ranking of the weights of the criteria by case study, ranking the groups and their associated properties among farmers’ profiles. Methods: The answers to 120 questionnaires dispensed to the future users of IASs in the four agricultural sites were analyzed in detail, and then the given priorities were evaluated through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP methodology was used to determine the relative weights of the five assessment criteria, and finally, to select the one with major value. Results and conclusions: The results show that A5 (assuring economic sustainability) was the most important criterion. The contributions provided by this study are twofold: Firstly, it presents an application of a methodology that involves the conversion of a linguistic judgement of farmers in a correspondence weight. Secondly, it tackles decision making regarding improving the use of IASs, evaluating the preferences expressed by the stakeholders. Irrigation advisory services can play a key role in assisting users to adopt new techniques and technologies for more efficient water use and increased production.

Some major future global challenges are linked to more efficient use of water for irrigation to respond to the growing water scarcity coupled with the increasing food demand. Although irrigation advisory services (IASs) are considered effective instruments to increase water use efficiency in agriculture, their diffusion remains limited. This is due to several constraints mainly linked to their low accessibility and high costs. To overcome the bottlenecks associated with IASs’ adoption, this paper proposes a business model (BM) as a tool for scaling up IASs within a business perspective, with the aim of encouraging the diffusion of this technology while enhancing the associated environmental and social benefits. Drawn from the experience of the OPERA project, we structured the business model taking advantage of the opinion of relevant stakeholders and IASs’ potential users to identify specific limitations and understand their needs. It turned out that farmers are willing to adopt IASs but require that the service is easily accessible, with high-quality information that are delivered at an affordable cost. Indeed, here a BM with an innovative way to produce and deliver value is proposed. The value proposition is built upon key features namely, integration, customization, accessibility, and sustainability that reflect users’ needs and preferences. Our BM also provides a detailed revenues strategy that guarantees the financial sustainability of IASs. To design and represent our BM, the “Business Model Canvas ©” has been adopted. We concluded that an innovative and well-structured BM has the potential to leave the IASs profitable and capable to ensure environmental and social sustainability.

Soil plays a central role in the global carbon cycle and in the fight against climate change and the protection of soil organic carbon (SOC) is fundamental. However, more than 33% of global soils are subject to moderate to severe degradation caused and the stocks of SOC in farmland and the extent of wetlands and peatlands are steadily decreasing. To maintain and increase C stocks in agricultural soils, carbon farming (CF) practices can be supported by carbon credits, tradable credits corresponding to 1 ton of CO2eq that are issued upon the demonstration of increased SOC stocks over time by C accounting methodologies for each agroecosystem and farming practice. In this study, an analysis of carbon credits methodologies focusing on agricultural soil C in extra-EU countries (Australia, Alberta in Canada, United States) is offered. Based on this review, we recommend to strengthening the European Commission proposal of regulation on Carbon removals (COM(2022) 672 final) by i) expanding the list of eligible agricultural practices ii) setting a permanence time frame for each agricultural practice, iii) setting the GAECs of the CAP as regulatory baseline, iv) including GHG emissions in the calculation of carbon removals, v) prioritizing CF projects on low-SOC lands, vi) clarifying the interaction with the CAP and the Soil Monitoring Law, vii) basing Carbon removals calculation on SOC maps, land use information and modelling, viii) setting a base price for carbon credits. These recommendations and many more are proposed to guarantee effective environmental protection, feasibility and economic affordability for farmers.