Exemplary Design for Supply Chain Development for Business Models

1 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Exemplary Design for Supply Chain Development for Business Models Project NOVASOIL Project title INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Work Package WP2. Analysis and Development of Business Models to Promote Soil Health Deliverable 2.4 Period covered M25-M36 Publication date 31.10.2025 Dissemination level PU - Public Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this report TUM Authors Carina Ober, Karl Müller Sämann, Stephen Schrempp, Jan Schuberth, Fabian Frick, Liesbeth Dries, Mohammed Hussen Alemu, Søren Bøye Olsen, Tobias Holmsgaard Rønn, Thomas Lundhede, Kerttu Tammik, Tiina Köster, Kalvi Tamm, Merili Toom, Mart Laugis, Ain Lepik, Daniele Vergamini, Luciano Pagano, Francesco Riccioli, Dimitre Nikolov, Ekatherina Tzvetanova-Georgieva, Krasimir Kostenarov, Ivan Boevsky Contributors TUM, WU, UCPH, ZALF, METK, UNIPI, NBU NOVASOIL INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Grant agreement ID: 101091268 Ref. Ares(2025)9373834 - 31/10/2025 2 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES This document has been shared to the consortium in order to ensure their quality and to include a multidisciplinary point of view. Following a description of the different reviews can be found. TABLE REVISION HISTORY DELIVERABLE Row Version Date Reviewers Description 1 V1.0 13/10/2025 TUM Draft version circulated by email 2 V2.0 30/10/2025 All contributors Pre-final version circulated by mail 3 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Project Consortium Nº Participant organisation name Country 1 EVENOR TECH SLU ES 2 LEIBNIZ-ZENTRUM FUER AGRARLANDSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG DE 3 ZEMNIEKU SAEIMA LV 4 NEW BULGARIAN UNIVERSITY BU 5 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS FR 6 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 7 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN DE 8 ASSEMBLEE DES REGIONS EUROPEENNES FRUITIERES LEGUMIERES ET HORTICOLES FR 9 ISTITUTO DELTA ECOLOGIA APPLICATA SRL IT 10 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA IT 11 WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY NL 12 CENTRE OF ESTONIAN RURAL RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE EE 13 UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID ES 14 UNIVERSITA DI PISA IT 15 ASOCIACION AGRARIA JOVENES AGRICULTORES DE SEVILLA ES 16 UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS GB 4 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Table of Contents Table of Content 1. Introduction and objectives ....................................................................................................................... 8 2. Methodological approach ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Preparation for the workshops: Identifying relevant actors along the value chain 9 2.2 During the workshop ......................................................................................................................... 10 3. Results from individual workshops .......................................................................................................13 3.1 Germany: Carbon farming (TUM) .....................................................................................................13 3.1.1 Case study description ..................................................................................................................13 3.1.2 Workshop description ...................................................................................................................13 3.1.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support ............................. 14 3.1.4 Potential Metrics .............................................................................................................................. 18 3.1.5 Insights from a qualitative survey – Interviews with (potential) farmers and costumers of the CO2-Land initiative ................................................................................................. 19 3.1.6 Insights from a Q-methodology study – farmers’ perspectives on soil health 25 3.2 Netherlands: Carbon credits (WU) ............................................................................................ 27 3.2.1 Case study description ................................................................................................................ 27 3.2.2 Workshop description ................................................................................................................. 27 3.2.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support ............................ 28 3.2.4 Potential Metrics ............................................................................................................................. 30 3.3 Italy: Italian consumers (UNIPI) .....................................................................................................31 3.3.1 Case study description ..................................................................................................................31 3.3.2 Workshop description ...................................................................................................................31 3.3.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support ............................. 33 3.3.4 Potential Metrics ............................................................................................................................. 36 3.4 Estonia: Seed centre (METK) ......................................................................................................... 38 3.4.1 Case study description ................................................................................................................ 38 3.4.2 Workshop description ................................................................................................................. 38 3.4.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support ............................ 39 5 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 3.4.4 Potential Metrics ............................................................................................................................. 42 3.5 Bulgaria: rural tourism (NBU)....................................................................................................... 43 3.5.1 Case study description ................................................................................................................ 43 3.5.2 Workshop description ................................................................................................................. 43 3.5.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support ............................ 44 3.5.4 Potential Metrics ............................................................................................................................. 47 3.6 Denmark: Soil health label (UCPH)........................................................................................... 48 3.6.1 Case study description ................................................................................................................ 48 3.6.2 Workshop description ................................................................................................................. 48 3.6.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support ............................ 49 3.6.4 Potential Metrics ...............................................................................................................................51 4. General discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 52 4.1 Customer segments ........................................................................................................................... 52 4.2 Value proposition ................................................................................................................................. 52 4.3 Channels .................................................................................................................................................... 52 4.4 Customer relationships .................................................................................................................... 52 4.5 Revenue streams .................................................................................................................................. 53 4.6 Cost structure ......................................................................................................................................... 53 4.7 Key resources .......................................................................................................................................... 53 4.8 Key activities ............................................................................................................................................ 53 4.9 Key partners ............................................................................................................................................. 53 4.10 Policy framework ................................................................................................................................. 54 5. Policy brief ........................................................................................................................................................... 55 6. Overall conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 58 7. Appendix .............................................................................................................................................................. 60 A) TUM .............................................................................................................................................................. 60 B) WU ................................................................................................................................................................ 64 C) UNIPI ............................................................................................................................................................ 67 D) METK ............................................................................................................................................................ 73 E) NBU .............................................................................................................................................................. 77 F) UCPH ........................................................................................................................................................... 80 6 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 List of Figures Figure 1: Value chain segments and associated stakeholders 9 List of Tables Table 1: Relevant value chain actors for the German case study ................................................ 14 Table 2: Relevant metrics to evaluate the business model’s success for the German case study ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3: Relevant value chain actors for the Dutch case study .................................................. 27 Table 4: Relevant metrics to evaluate the business model’s success for the Dutch case study ................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Table 5: Relevant value chain actors for the Italian case study ................................................... 32 Table 6: Relevant metrics to evaluate the business model’s success for the Italian case study ................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 7: Relevant value chain actors for the Estonian case study ............................................ 39 Table 8: Relevant metrics to evaluate the business model’s success for the Estonian case study ..................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 9: Relevant value chain actors for the Bulgarian case study .......................................... 44 Table 10: Relevant metrics to evaluate the business model’s success for the Bulgarian case study ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 11: Relevant value chain actors for the Danish case study ................................................ 49 Table 12: Relevant metrics to evaluate the business model’s success for the Danish case study ..................................................................................................................................................................................51 7 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Abstract This report presents the results of Task 2.4, Co-Development and Supply Chain Design for Selected Business and Innovation Models, conducted within the NOVASOIL project. The task aimed to support the scale-up of soil health business models through participatory co-development processes and the exemplary design of supply chains adapted to different agro-ecological, climatic, and socio-economic contexts across Europe. Workshops were organized in the six case study regions Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Estonia, Bulgaria, and Denmark to identify challenges, co-create solutions, and explore opportunities for implementation. Using the Business Model Canvas as a guiding framework, stakeholders assessed barriers and enablers across ten key dimensions, including customer segments, value proposition, channels, cost structure, and policy environment. Findings reveal that common barriers to upscaling include fragmented markets, insufficient financing mechanisms, limited consumer awareness, and complex regulatory frameworks. Conversely, opportunities arise from blended financial models, cooperative value-chain structures, stakeholder engagement, and policy alignment with agri-environmental and innovation measures. The co-development approach proved instrumental in fostering collaboration, ensuring local ownership, and adapting business models to real-world conditions. Overall, the task demonstrates that successful scaling of soil health business models depends on integrating ecological goals with economic viability through inclusive stakeholder processes and context-specific supply chain design. The resulting insights provide practical guidance for policymakers, practitioners, and innovators aiming to advance sustainable soil management and circular, climate-resilient rural economies across Europe. 8 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 1. Introduction and objectives Within the Task 2.4 “Co-Development and Supply Chain Design for Selected Business and Innovation Models,” workshops were organized to engage stakeholders in reflecting on and revising implemented business models, and to address crucial barriers and enablers regarding the upscaling of these models. The workshops were held within the framework of Work Package 2, as part of the Analysis and Development of Business Models to Promote Soil Health. The workshop aimed to advance the co-development approach for scaling up soil health business models by drawing on findings from previous project stages (see D2.3). Soil health business models hold significant potential for improving agri-ecological resilience, enhancing biodiversity, and supporting sustainable agricultural practices. However, their successful upscaling requires overcoming barriers related to financing, investment, insurance, consumer demand, producer participation, and regulatory frameworks. At the same time, opportunities exist through innovative supply-chain design, institutional support, and stakeholder engagement. The workshop therefore served as a platform to: • Identify challenges and opportunities associated with scaling up selected business models, including economic, policy, and institutional dimensions. • Engage stakeholders along the supply chain in reflective and feedback-driven discussions to enhance context-specific solutions and address critical enablers and barriers such as climate conditions, regulatory constraints, and market dynamics. • Co-develop exemplary guidelines for upscaling business models, building on the identified challenges and opportunities to create practical pathways for more efficient, profitable, and scalable approaches. Upscaling, in this context, refers to the further development of a functioning business model, resulting in significant increases in revenue and growth, ideally paired with a less than proportional increase in operational costs. It is about scaling business models to be larger, more efficient, and/or more profitable, with relatively small additional effort per customer or product. Through this process, the workshop contributed to designing exemplary and tailormade supply chains for the most promising soil health business models, laying the foundation for their successful implementation across diverse agri-ecological, climatic, and socio-economic contexts. 9 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 2. Methodological approach To structure the discussion with stakeholders on challenges and solution, a business model canvas concept was followed. This approach ensured a holistic view on different aspects necessary for a business model’s success. To identify and invite relevant stakeholders to the workshops, partners reflected on the specific business model’s value chain setup, to choose individuals from all relevant stages of the supply chain. 2.1 Preparation for the workshops: Identifying relevant actors along the value chain Before the workshops, it was essential to identify the relevant actors involved in each business model’s value chain. A value chain comprises all individuals, organisations, and companies that contribute to the creation, processing, refinement, marketing, or use of a product or service. Mapping these actors helps to clarify responsibilities, pinpoint leverage points for innovation, and highlight where potential barriers or opportunities may arise. Typical actors along an agri-food value chain include (see also Figure 1): • Primary producers (e.g., farmers), • Processors of harvested products (e.g., mills, food processors), • Intermediary trade and logistics providers (e.g., wholesalers, transport companies), • Finishing and packaging services (e.g., quality control, packaging facilities), • Sales and distribution channels (e.g., retailers), • End-users and consumers. Primary production (e.g. farmer) Processing of harvested products Intermediary trade / Logistics (e.g. Wholesale) Finishing and Packaging (e.g. Quality control) Sales (e.g. Retail) EndUser/ Consumer [Other relevant actors] FIGURE 1: VALUE CHAIN SEGMENTS AND ASSOCIATED STAKEHOLDERS 16 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 catch crops. Comparing the price per ton of CO2 with the farmer's additional input, it becomes clear that the farmer cannot offset the costs of healthier soils through CO2 certificates. Additionally, CO2 prices fluctuate, which further increases the risk. As a solution, farmers who participated at the workshop advise starting with measures to improve soil health that can be implemented using equipment and machinery already existing on the farm. Newcomers should refrain from making costly investments right away. Time, or agricultural growth cycles, also play a decisive role for farmers reluctance to experiment with new methods. While in other industries, changes in production techniques can be tested in several cycles per year, farmers have only one attempt each year for a new cultivation method. A loss of yield from a single harvest is therefore more severe for the farm’s profits compared to other sectors. Another possible solution could be hybrid financing models. Cost recovery and CO2 prices would then be considered separately, e.g., by a fixed payment aimed at remunerating additional efforts by the famer, and variable revenues generated by selling certificates as a top-up remuneration. This would ensure lower financial risk for the farmer, for example, if investments are subsidized. At the same time, the sale of CO2 certificates offers an additional financial incentive to store additional CO2. Costs associated with high-value catch crop seed mixtures could also be reimbursed as part of agri-environmental measures. These suggestions are connected to policy changes that would facilitate such reimbursement systems. Because of the problem of double financing, it is usually not possible to combine different remuneration systems. For example, if intercropping is funded via agri-environmental schemes, it is not permissible to receive funds for this measure additionally through the participation in the private initiative. However, oftentimes additional costs exceed the premium paid under the agri-environmental scheme. A system that combines different components of private and public measures would enable farmers to be fairly compensated for their additional expenditures. vi. Cost structure The time dynamics emerged as a central aspect of the initiative’s cost structure. The storage of CO2 is a long-term process. The first soil samples to determine a change in soil organic carbon levels are taken 4 years after the initial baseline samples were collected. The challenge for the CO2-Land initiative is that during this period no certificates can be issued that would generate revenues. To help farmers to at least partially cover their costs, the initiative makes advance payments for four years based on the estimated sequestration potential. However, it can only sell CO2 certificates after four years. At the same time, the acquisition of farmers often requires two years, from the initial consultation until the creation of a precise operational concept with consultants, 17 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 to the initiation of the new practices. This requires not only considerable financial resources, but also human resources for consultation, long before the CO2 sequestration generates any revenue. vii. Key resources As the initiative acts as an association and not a company, in general it has to cope with limited financial and personnel resources, and a lot of work is done on a voluntary and unpaid basis. For an effective marketing and scale-up of the initiative, a lot more resources would be needed. In this regard, initial public support especially in the startup phase to kick-start the initiative would be of crucial help. Another key resource for the initiative is farmers’ knowledge of soil health and management and their interest in investing in their soils. However, several workshop participants shared the observation that, in general, the knowledge of farmers about soil health is limited and is also not fostered by agricultural schools. In their professional life, farmers receive too little training and support or expert advice on soils on a continuous basis. Participants consequently emphasised the importance to allocate greater significance to soils in farmers’ vocational training. An idea connected to this was to re-invest revenues from CO2 certificates that the initiative raises in programs or campaigns to foster soil awareness viii. Key activities The key activity of the initiative can be seen as all efforts connected to increasing organic carbon in agricultural soils. There are inherent risks connected to this activity due to uncontrollable natural processes determining SOC increase, which makes it not constant and also SOC levels reach a balance at one some point. Also, some soil types make SOC increase more difficult. This has implication for other business model building blocks such as costs, revenues and partnerships of the initiative, as discussed in the respective sections. ix. Key partners A major challenge of the initiative is that most farmers are not familiar with it. In addition, farmers are often unwilling to deviate from the well-known agri-environment climate schemes (AECS). AECS have been known for a long time and are well established. For farmers, the risk of these measures is usually very low. As farmers are already overburdened with bureaucratic requirements and are usually overwhelmed, they are not prepared to become involved in new, private initiatives. Even though the initiatives are often easier for the farmer to implement than initially assumed due to close support, farmers are often not prepared to take on anything in addition to the funding structure of the GAP. One way to attract farmers is to advertise the initiative and its benefits 18 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 through informational events. Field days related to practical aspects are particularly attractive. In terms of the political framework, it would be important to provide young farmers with sufficient training in this area. For partnering farmers, the risk consists in entering into a long-term contract (10 years) connected to returns depending on uncertain carbon sequestration achieved during the following years. Additionally, some farmers might already have negative experiences from similar initiatives that failed in the past. x. Policy framework Connected to costs of the initiative, it was remarked that there is no or only limited support directly to the initiative. Some direct monetary support, e.g., during the startup phase to boost the initiative was advocated for. As mentioned before, the principle of additionality poses a challenge for the initiative, as one practice done by a farmer cannot be remunerated twice, even when it has several benefits. Allow for more flexible remuneration schemes and stacking of payments was mentioned as a potential solution. Also related to the policy framework, concerns were raised whether the certification standard developed by the initiative could be officially acknowledged, e.g., for carbon offsetting efforts of companies. If this is not the case, the initiative would lose a central selling point. 3.1.4 Potential Metrics Table 2 summarises potential metrics that were identified during the workshop to quantify the business models success, impact, or effectiveness. TABLE 2: RELEVANT METRICS TO EVALUATE THE BUSINESS MODEL’S SUCCESS FOR THE GERMAN CASE STUDY Metric Unit Measured how? Number of customers Number Own records Number of Farmers Number Own records Area under contract Hectares Own records and information by partner farms. Because the initiative follows an inherently collaborative approach, the total area under contract summed up across similar initiatives would be a relevant measure for the success of similar initiatives as a whole. Carbon sequestered t SOC Results from soil tests Changes in the political framework being made to support initiatives such as CO2-Land and their mission None This more qualitative measure was mentioned as a sign of being heard and recognized by policy makers. Size of the network composed of similar initiatives None The degree to which similar initiatives are connected among each other (how big is the network), as a measure of collaboration among initiatives toward a common mission. 19 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 3.1.5 Insights from a qualitative survey – Interviews with (potential) farmers and costumers of the CO2-Land initiative 3.1.5.1 Qualitative Interviews with Farmers on Carbon Farming Between 22 October and 7 December 2024, eleven open telephone interviews were conducted with farmers as part of the NOVASOIL project to gather their experiences and views on humus-building and carbon farming programmes. The interviews were based on a standardized questionnaire and primarily targeted farms located in southern Germany, where the CO₂-Land initiative is most active. A total of eleven farms participated in the interviews, ten full-time and one part-time farmer. Among them were three organic and eight conventional farms. Seven farms combined arable farming with livestock production, while four were without livestock. Three farms operated biogas plants. Farm sizes ranged between 40 and 440 hectares, with a generally high share of rented land. The soil conditions within and between farms were described as very heterogeneous, with soil indices (German “Ackerzahl”) ranging from 35 to 95, reflecting strong variations in yield potential. These diverse site conditions suggest that humus-building measures must be adapted individually, requiring flexible implementation depending on soils, weather, available machinery, and programme agreements. Seven farms are already participating in a humus-building programme, while four had no prior experience with such schemes. Most farms are family-run businesses, typically managed by one farm operator with the support of family members. Some employ part-time or seasonal workers, and three farms have one or two permanent employees. In one case (a fruit and vegetable farm), up to twenty workers are employed during peak periods. The interviews were conducted by telephone and recorded (using MS Speech Recorder, version 10.2103 28.0). Each interview was subsequently transcribed and anonymized. The approach allowed interviewees to express their opinions and experiences freely, using their own terminology and emphasis. This method made it possible to identify typical perceptions, expectations, and motivations of farmers regarding carbon farming as a business model. The questionnaire was designed to be completed within roughly 20 minutes, which proved advantageous for recruiting participants. Motivation for participation: 20 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 The most frequently mentioned and strongest motivation for participation was the “win–win” situation of simultaneously contributing to climate protection and improving soil quality while also receiving modest financial compensation. For most respondents, the investment in soil health was the main driver, particularly in relation to climate adaptation and yield stability under increasing risks. The financial incentive was seen as recognition of these efforts and to generate a new tradable product through soil carbon storage. An objective monitoring system and the measurement component of the programme were perceived as motivating factors as well, both as internal performance feedback and as a way to demonstrate agriculture’s contribution to climate and soil protection to the broader public. In contrast, demotivating factors included persisting uncertainties about the effectiveness of individual measures and, among more experienced farms, the perceived overemphasis on soil carbon increase instead of maintaining already high soil carbon levels. Perceived benefits of participation: Most interviewees stated that their primary motivation stems from expected improvements in soil quality on their own farms. Participation in a programme was seen as providing support and encouragement for these efforts, through both financial compensation and technical assistance from the programme provider, as well as through peer exchange with other participating farmers. Several respondents highlighted that participation enhances the visibility of farmers’ environmental engagement, particularly concerning climate protection and soil health. Additionally, the monitoring and measurement activities were valued as tools for assessing the success and quality of implemented practices at farm level. Perceived programme impacts: Respondents rated the greatest benefits of carbon farming in maintaining soil productivity and climate adaptation, followed by contributions to biodiversity and groundwater protection. Added income and direct climate mitigation were seen as less significant, as global effects and farm-level returns were considered limited. Participation requirements: Farmers emphasized the importance of credible monitoring, transparency, and practical programme design with minimal bureaucracy. Measures should fit into existing farm operations, and additional costs should be covered. Advisory support and peer exchange were viewed as essential for motivation and knowledge transfer. 21 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Contract preferences: Contract duration: Farmers generally agreed that short-term contracts are meaningless in carbon farming, as soil carbon changes occur slowly and require long-term commitment (typically 5–15 years). However, some participants expressed discomfort with long contractual obligations. Payment schedule: Most respondents preferred annual payments over payments based solely on measurement results every three to five years. Annual payments were seen as more practical for covering ongoing costs and offering motivational continuity. Many suggested a hybrid model combining an annual base payment with performance-based bonuses after each measurement cycle. Payment criteria – results-based vs. measure-based: A clear majority favoured measure-based remuneration, arguing that costs occur regardless of measurable carbon increases. This approach was also viewed as fairer, since farms with already high carbon levels would otherwise be disadvantaged. Weather conditions and external factors could also affect results, making purely outcomebased payments risky. A mixed model rewarding both the implementation of measures and their verified effectiveness was seen as ideal. Flexibility in implementation: Participants agreed that rigid measure catalogues are impractical. Carbon farming programmes should allow flexibility in adapting to weather variability, equipment availability, and labour constraints. Long-term contracts should also permit adjustments to crop rotations or the inclusion of new scientific insights. Advisory support: Most farmers expect technical guidance from experienced experts within the programme, as well as opportunities for peer learning and exchange. Advisory activities should be practice-oriented and scheduled during less busy periods (e.g., winter). Exchange with peers: Professional exchange among farmers was widely regarded as a valuable and meaningful component of programme participation, fostering learning effects, efficiency gains, and potential cooperation (e.g., shared use of machinery). Public relations: With few exceptions, participants supported public communication of programme outcomes, to be led primarily by the programme provider. Farmers were willing to contribute as practical examples, while expecting the programme to handle broader outreach. They emphasized the importance of highlighting the public goods and ecosystem services provided by agriculture through carbon farming. Suggested communication tools included setting up information boards at field borders and increased use of social media. 22 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 3.1.5.2 Report on qualitative interviews with customers and supporters on the topic of carbon farming Objective and approach This second part of the study focused on the customer and supporter side of the initiative. The interviews aimed to capture company and institutional perspectives on Carbon Farming, focusing on perceived opportunities, risks, and evaluation criteria for participation in such programs. The survey was conducted between 19 September and 13 October 2025, based on a structured set of open-ended questions. Interviews were carried out by phone or online, recorded with participants’ consent, and later summarized in written transcripts. Each session lasted on average 40–45 minutes. The open format encouraged spontaneous and detailed responses, enabling a deeper understanding of how Carbon Farming is perceived as a contribution to sustainability and climate protection. Participants In total, 11 interviews were conducted. The selection focused primarily on private-sector companies, as they represent the main potential financiers of Carbon Farming projects. Public institutions were included only to a limited extent, given their mainly coordinating or partnership roles. Among the participants, 10 represented private companies and one a municipal authority active in climate policy. Eight companies belonged to the service sector, and three to trade or manufacturing. Five participants were linked to the agricultural sector or its supply chain, while six operated in other industries. Company sizes ranged from 10 to 11,000 employees, with two-thirds employing more than 100 staff. The firms were geographically diverse, located across Germany from Schleswig-Holstein to Bavaria. Nine companies had direct contact with end customers, while three operated indirectly. Three were already supporting the CO₂-Land programme, and two had previously purchased certificates from other initiatives. Implementation In small firms, interviews were conducted with managing directors; in larger ones, with climate or environmental officers. Initial contact was made by phone, and participants were informed about objectives and data protection (anonymous evaluation within 23 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 the NOVASOIL project). To ensure a shared understanding, the term Carbon Farming was explained before each interview. Motivation for participation in a carbon farming program: In general, regional visibility and impact are considered highly important aspects of Carbon Farming (CF). This was repeatedly highlighted as a key motivation and advantage compared to international projects. Several companies emphasized that Carbon Farming enables them to make climate protection tangible for their employees and customers on a local level and to establish direct contact with the farmers implementing the measures. Projects in the regional context are also viewed positively because they are easier to understand, more transparent, and inspire greater trust. A few companies, including those outside the agricultural supply chain, go beyond merely supporting Carbon Farming through the purchase of certificates. They actively raise awareness among employees and customers about the added value of CF as a climate protection measure and help bring the commitment of local farmers into public focus. Another motivating factor for engagement in Carbon Farming is its ease of scalability. Farmland is widely available and offers a large, quickly accessible potential for climate action. Other regional options, such as peatland restoration or forestry measures, can only be implemented on a limited scale and often involve complex processes or lack suitable sites. In contrast, the use of arable land avoids land-use conflicts and produces additional benefits for soil health and the surrounding environment. Emission reductions within companies’ own supply chains are also a strong motivation for investing in CF, particularly among processors, traders, and distributors of agricultural products. Two food-processing companies, for example, indirectly promote humus-building cultivation practices through agricultural advisory services and premiums for low-emission production, thereby reducing the ecological footprint of their supply chains. A small number of companies follow the topic of Carbon Farming closely but remain sceptical due to ongoing debates about permanence, i.e., the long-term stability of CO₂ sequestration. They fear that engagement in such initiatives could expose them to accusations of greenwashing. Important quality criteria of carbon farming: It was first noted that the interviewed company representatives and sustainability officers possessed a relatively high and differentiated level of knowledge regarding carbon farming (CF). This suggests that the decision to support a CF program is generally made in a well-considered and deliberate manner. 24 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 A connection to the company’s core business is particularly important for clients in the agricultural and food sectors, who almost exclusively engage within their own supply chains. For other financiers, the motivation lies more in the connection to nature and the desire to make a tangible contribution. The regional implementation of projects is regarded as highly significant not only for supply-chain-related reasons but also due to the wish to create visible local impact and to make partnerships and climate engagement tangible, transparent, and relatable for employees and customers. In most cases, respondents expect CF programs to be designed with a long-term perspective, while the actual funding commitments should cover shorter periods. Clients tend to prefer continuous engagement over fixed financial commitments and wish to remain flexible in the level of support, depending on business performance and compensation needs. Almost all participants emphasized the importance of programs operating under a verified standard as a precondition for engagement. Such certification provides assurance for both the initiative and the responsible individuals while preventing accusations of greenwashing. Regarding the price of humus or soil carbon certificates, many clients are willing to pay a moderate premium within the range of comparable offers if the program provides added value, such as transparency, regional focus, efficient use of funds, certified standards, or overall program quality. However, this willingness is limited and closely linked to the prevailing market environment. Contributions by CF programs and participating companies to public relations and media outreach are also appreciated as expressions of active partnership, helping to maintain trust and motivation. Finally, the transparency in the use of funds is considered highly important, particularly regarding the proportion of financial resources allocated to administrative overheads versus those directly supporting on-farm measures. Operational exploitation of commitment to climate, soil, and nature: The interviewees had different views on how to leverage their commitment. However, almost all respondents agreed on one point: commitment to CSR is an expression of corporate identity, both internally and externally. Respondents spoke of responsibility, intrinsic motivation, and conviction. Presenting the commitment as part of sustainability reporting or in public relations is then a side effect. Criticism of the reporting obligation is also raised here. Only about half of those surveyed would consider carbon farming for offsetting. The limited usability in view of the voluntary market and double counting were cited as obstacles. 25 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Pragmatism prevails when it comes to conceivable models for supporting humus-promoting measures: for most respondents, CO2 certificates (expressed in t CO2) are more tangible and practical than, for example, an area or measure-based premium, even though there is certainly understanding for non-results-oriented support. Some suggest implementing a hybrid payment approach in which a basic premium is paid for the implementation of measures that are proven to be effective, and the result is rewarded through the sale of CO2 tonnages. 3.1.6 Insights from a Q-methodology study – farmers’ perspectives on soil health Objective and methodology In addition to interviews with farmers about their attitudes toward carbon farming, a study conducted as part of a Bachelor’s thesis examined farmers' general willingness to invest in soil health. The study examined farmers’ perspectives on carbon farming and soil health, focusing on the opportunities and barriers that influence the implementation of soil-improving and carbon-sequestering practices in agriculture. It aims to identify typical attitudes toward such measures and to assess how economic incentives, regulatory structures, and personal values shape farmers’ willingness to adopt them. Methodologically, the research combines Q-methodology with qualitative interviews. Fifteen farmers from various agricultural sectors (arable, livestock, mixed, and biogas operations) completed a Q-sort based on 28 statements derived from literature and policy analysis. The Q-sorts were statistically analysed through principal component analysis and Varimax rotation, revealing distinct clusters of viewpoints. In-depth interviews with eleven participants provided qualitative context for the quantitative findings. Results Two major farmer perspectives emerged: 1. Funding-Oriented Pragmatists – These farmers focus on economic feasibility and administrative simplicity. They support carbon farming primarily when programs are well-funded, flexible, and easily integrated into existing farm routines. Bureaucracy and long-term contractual obligations are seen as obstacles. They regard financial incentives as essential motivators and emphasize transparency to avoid accusations of greenwashing. 2. Long-Term Soil Stewards – This group views soil protection as an investment in future productivity and environmental stability. Their motivation is largely intrinsic, driven by long-term ecological benefits rather than short-term profit. They accept longer project durations and consider carbon farming valuable 32 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 findings was circulated to all participants for validation, ensuring the accuracy and shared ownership of the results. Table 5 summarises relevant value chain actors considered for the case study. TABLE 5: RELEVANT VALUE CHAIN ACTORS FOR THE ITALIAN CASE STUDY Value chain stage Primary production (e.g. farmer) Processing of harvested products Intermediary trade / Logistics (e.g. Wholesale) Finishing and Packaging (e.g. Quality control) Sales (e.g. Retail) User Other relevant actors Who? Local farmers in marginal hilly areas of Tuscany Local Grower-Distiller Business for distillation of aromatic plants into essential oils “Colli Pisani” business network SMEs and farms involved in bottling, labeling, and certification (organic, sustainability standards) Direct farm shops, rural tourism facilities, local markets, e-commerce platforms Visitors, tourists (eco-tourism, experiential tourism), local consumers Research centres (University of Pisa, others), public administrations, Terre Pisano Livornesi Rural District, environmental associations (e.g. LIPU) What? Farmers convert from conventional to organic agriculture and cultivate perennial medicinal and aromatic crops to regenerate soils and improve ecosystem services Transformation of raw materials into certified organic essential oils and derived products (cosmetics, herbal products, food ingredients) Organization of logistics for harvesting, distillation, and distribution of smallscale production; potential shared services (machinery, transport, guided tours) Quality control, certification of organic and sustainable products, packaging to increase market value Sale of certified organic aromatic products and valueadded derivatives; integrated with rural tourism and eco-tourism offers Use of high-value organic products; participation in sustainable tourism activities (farm visits, tastings, wellness retreats, birdwatching) Provide technical support, innovation, training, policy design, promotion, and territorial marketing to strengthen the multifunctional model 33 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 3.3.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support i. Customer segments These include hit-and-run tourists visiting during June-July primarily for photographs and souvenirs, experiential tourists such as couples, families, and small groups seeking farm lunches, workshops, and wellness activities, and sustainable tourism visitors motivated by biodiversity conservation, birdwatching, and soil regeneration. The primary challenge identified within the customer segments is the business model's heavy reliance on a highly seasonal tourist flow concentrated in the short flowering period. These visitors are often "hit-and-run," and the deeper ecosystem value of the territory is not yet a significant driver for their visit. The co-designed solution is to de-seasonalise the offer by developing and promoting year-round experiences, such as winter birdwatching and gastronomic events, that highlight the area's regenerative value. This strategy requires policy support through cooperation measures (SRG07) to foster coordinated promotion among local actors and access to regional funds for sustainable tourism. The presence of olive cultivation in the hilly area offers additional opportunities for tourism de-seasoning: olive harvest experiences, oil tasting events, and visits to olive mills during autumn and winter months could complement the lavender-focused summer offer, creating a year-round territorial attraction ii. Value proposition The model's value proposition is to offer an immersive tourist experience linked to the cultivation of aromatic plants able to regenerate soil and produce quality essential oil, within a supply chain that has a positive territorial impact. This proposition is currently weakened by low agronomic yields and high plant mortality, which constrain the availability and profitability of its core products. To strengthen it, participants proposed a strategy of replanting with more resilient plant varieties and diversifying the range of value-added products sold directly on farms. Such an initiative can be effectively supported by policy instruments like cooperation measures (SRG07) to finance integrated supply chain projects and by leveraging the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) for technical advice. Additionally, lavender and lavandin cultivation serves as a valuable source for beekeeping and honey production, enhancing the melliferous flora and supporting pollinator populations in the area. iii. Channels A significant logistical challenge arises from the scattered and disconnected nature of the farms and lavender fields, making it difficult for tourists to access and enjoy an 34 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 integrated territorial experience. The most practical solution identified is the creation of a unified itinerary, potentially supported by a shared shuttle service, to connect the main points of interest. This can be facilitated at the policy level through inter-municipal agreements and cooperation tools (SRG07) designed to finance shared logistics and promote soft mobility in rural areas. iv. Customer relationship A shared coordination mechanism and calendar of events exists among producers belonging to the Colli Pisani Business Network, particularly active during the summer flowering period, while producers outside the Network operate independently. The relationship with customers is currently fragmented due to the partial coordination among producers, as the existing Business Network does not include all actors. This leads to heterogeneous communication and a disjointed tourist offering. The clear solution is to expand the Business Network to be more inclusive and to strengthen its coordination with local institutions. Policy can play a crucial role by activating measures (SRG07) that finance the often-overlooked costs of network governance, such as management and joint promotional activities. v. Revenue streams Most income derives from experiential tourism activities, specifically farm lunches and dinners, guided visits to the lavender fields, and direct sales of small bottles of essential oil to on-site visitors. The analysis revealed that the model is economically fragile, as revenues from essential oil sales are insufficient, making its survival almost exclusively dependent on tourism. To build resilience, the proposed solution is to diversify revenue streams by increasing direct sales, strengthening paid experiences, and developing innovative models linked to ecosystem services, such as carbon credits. Another promising diversification pathway involves honey production from lavender fields, which would capitalize on the melliferous value of aromatic crops while supporting local pollinator biodiversity and ecosystem services. This requires policy support through measures promoting short supply chains (SRG07) and assistance in developing viable frameworks for the remuneration of environmental services. vi. Cost structure A major economic and logistical bottleneck exists within the cost structure, stemming from the dependence on a single harvester and a single distiller for the entire area. This inflates costs and creates significant operational risks. The consensus solution is to explore the collective purchase of new machinery, such as a second harvester, alongside the adoption of micro-distillation equipment at the farm level. Micro-distillation units, characterized by their contained investment costs, represent a viable op- 35 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 tion for individual farmers to process smaller quantities of aromatic plants independently. This decentralized approach would reduce logistical bottlenecks, lower transportation costs, and enable more flexible harvesting schedules aligned with the optimal balsamic time of each crop. The combination of collective investments for shared machinery and individual investments in affordable micro-distillation technology would optimize efficiency, reduce operational dependencies, and improve overall cost structure. This strategy directly aligns with policy measures designed to support collective investments (SRG07). vii. Key resources In the area, only one farm owns a harvesting machine (which is shared) and only one farm owns a distiller. The total cultivated area has been reduced to approximately 10 hectares due to natural erosion and plant mortality. Furthermore, the business model is limited by the lack of financial capital to reinvest. To address this, the participants identified the need for a multi-year replanting plan to expand the cultivated surfaces and diversify the crops. This initiative requires policy support from the knowledge system (AKIS) for training and innovation, as well as from cooperation measures (SRG07) to finance integrated projects. viii. Key activities On the agricultural side, activities centre on agronomic operations throughout the season, with harvesting representing a critical bottleneck, concentrated into just a few days due to reliance on a single machine, followed by centralized distillation. A critical inefficiency in key activities is the forced simultaneous harvesting window, which prevents producers from picking inflorescences at their optimal "balsamic time," thereby reducing oil yield and quality. The operational solution is to create a shared and coordinated harvesting and distillation calendar among all actors in the supply chain. This move towards more sophisticated coordination can be supported at the policy level through formal governance tools like program agreements or network contracts. ix. Key partners On the technical production side, one contractor provides all mechanical harvesting operations, while one Grower-Distiller Business handles all distillation processing for the area. Academic partnerships provide essential knowledge support through the University of Pisa and other research partners who conduct soil analysis and varietal research. The model faces significant risk due to its strong dependence on single suppliers for key activities, creating bottlenecks in the supply chain. Furthermore, coordination with institutional partners, especially on the tourism side, remains weak. The proposed solution is to diversify technical partners while strengthening institutional 36 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 collaboration through a permanent technical roundtable and inter-municipal agreements. Policy can facilitate this by using cooperation calls (SRG07) and leveraging AKIS helpdesks to formalize these partnerships with long-term contracts. x. Policy framework The main regulatory framework is the Tuscany RDP 2023–27, with measures for replanting medicinal crops, AKIS training and consultancy, and SRG07 “Cooperation for short supply chains,” funding collective farmer projects, joint machinery purchases, etc. A key challenge is the perceived gap between the available policy framework and the territory's actual needs, with farmers citing bureaucratic complexity as a significant barrier. The solution involves improving information flow through local AKIS helpdesks and adopting a broader funding strategy. This implies a necessary shift in policy focus from direct, often inaccessible measures to more transversal, enabling instruments like cooperation (SRG07) and knowledge systems (AKIS) that support the model's underlying governance structure. 3.3.4 Potential Metrics Table 6 summarises potential metrics that were identified during the workshop to quantify the business models success, impact, or effectiveness. 37 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 TABLE 6: RELEVANT METRICS TO EVALUATE THE BUSINESS MODEL’S SUCCESS FOR THE ITALIAN CASE STUDY Metric Unit Measured how? Total number of visitors Annual number Farm records, event data, Tourist Office data, Business Network Average visitor stay Hours/days Interviews, booking forms, questionnaires Area cultivated with lavender/other medicinal plants Hectares (ha) Direct farm surveys, District/Network estimates Quantity of essential oil produced / average yield Kg Distiller records, farm records Average value of oil sold €/kg Farm accounting records Number of farms joining the Network Number Official list of the Business Network Processed products offered on farms Number Farm catalogues, e-commerce, direct sales Joint events organized in the territory Number/year Business Network calendar, District activity reports, other entities Number of off-season events (Oct–Apr) Number of events Shared calendar (Network/Municipalities/District/farms) Diversification of the tourist offer Number of types activated Mapping of experiences (birdwatching, gastronomy, wellness, etc.) Increase in soil organic matter t SOC/ha Soil sampling and periodic analysis (e.g. 0–30 cm) Increase in soil microbial activity % increase Laboratory analyses (e.g. microbial biomass, soil respiration) Investments in shared equipment € Funded projects (SRG07, GAL, etc.) Collaborations with public/private actors Number Signed agreements, memoranda of understanding, involved partners Training activities activated Number AKIS projects, agreements with universities and research centers Coordinated online presence (branding) Yes/No – Frequency Number of followers / clicks Monitoring of social media/web presence (coordinated advertising) 38 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 3.4 Estonia: Seed centre (METK) 3.4.1 Case study description METK is Estonian Centre for Rural Research and Knowledge, operating under the governance of the Estonian Ministry of Rural Affairs. METK serves as a national research institution specializing in the development of sustainable agricultural practices, plant breeding, and the integration of soil science with agrotechnology. METK is actively engaged in the breeding of a wide range of agricultural crops and the production of high-quality seed material. The organization conducts comprehensive research on the effects of various crops and agrotechnological practices on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Activities include systematic soil sampling, laboratory analyses, field-based soil research, and the development of digital soil maps and advisory systems that support precision agriculture based on site-specific soil characteristics. The Seed Centre at METK manages approximately 1,100 hectares of land dedicated to high-quality seed production. Species cultivated for seed include major field crops such as cereals, oilseed and turnip rape, vegetables, forage grasses, and legume crops. The seed production chain encompasses all stages from breeder seed to certified seed. This ensures the availability and long-term continuity of METK-bred Estonian varieties. On average, METK varieties are certified on approximately 4,600 hectares of farmland annually, yielding about 5,500 tonnes of certified seed (e.g 4 t/ha by cereals and 0,5 t/ha by grasses). Current seed production systems rely primarily on conventional agricultural practices, including intensive tillage (such as ploughing), mineral fertilisation, and the application of synthetic pesticides. While these methods support high productivity and seed quality, they are associated with negative environmental externalities, including soil degradation and increased greenhouse gas emissions. 3.4.2 Workshop description The workshop was organised online on 29. September 2025. The event was organised as back-to-back workshop with multiplier event where the NOVASOIL project results and tools were introduced followed by discussion about METK case study business model about carbon-neutral seed (CN-seed) production. The number of participants was 20 at it’s busiest moment and there were representatives of farmers, paying agency, ministry of agriculture, researchers and people from our research institute. Table 7 summarises relevant value chain actors considered for the case study. 39 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 TABLE 7: RELEVANT VALUE CHAIN ACTORS FOR THE ESTONIAN CASE STUDY Value chain stage Primary production (e.g. farmer) Processing of harvested products Intermediary trade / Logistics (e.g. Wholesale) Finishing and Packaging Quality control Sales (e.g. Retail) User Other relevant actors Who? CN-seed producer CN-seed producer CN-seed producer Or farm that buys the seed. CN-seed producer Estonian Agriculture and Food Board (AFB). CNseed producer, garden centres or input sellers Crop production farms, gardeners Estonian Agricultural Register and Information Board (ARIB) What? The production of CNseed means less intensive seed production with less intensive crop rotation, catch crops in crop rotation, less tillage in crop rotation and the usage of hygienised digestate or compost. Cleaning and sorting of seed Transport of seed. Packaging of seed Seed certification Selling the CNseed to the users Buys and uses the CNseed Certification of seed production practices. Seed production practices are assessed 3.4.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support i. Customer segments Clients are farmers, who place high importance on achieving profitable production with low inputs, especially organic farmers. Farmers demand varieties which have following characteristics: disease resistance, weather tolerance and yield stability. There is a need for varieties suitable for organic farming, such as those with longer straw and 40 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 better weed suppression. Soil-friendly production is not yet a priority but could become important in the future. Local varieties are often better adapted to the Estonian climate compared to imported ones. There is also a knowledge gap about nutrient accumulation in different varieties. ii. Value proposition Clients are supported in achieving environmentally friendly production. Reduced need for pesticides and fertilizers. High-quality seed provides added value for farmers. iii. Channels The main challenge is delivering trustworthy information to the target group. Science-based information from research institutes competes with marketing noise and customers are often flooded with too much information. Common digital channels include websites, Facebook, WhatsApp, but more personal approaches such as email or direct meetings could be more effective. Effective scaling requires targeted communication based on detailed knowledge about clients. iv. Customer relationships The reliability of C-neutral certification is crucial. The certification process must be clearly defined and transparent. Expectations are placed more on the seed producer than on the customer. v. Revenue streams Higher-priced seed could be positioned as a niche brand, because the number of customers buying such seed with higher price can be limited at the starting point of business scheme. Seeds should be classified as environmentally friendly in order to guarantee higher prices. The key question is who is willing to pay more. Subsidies or market advantages will likely be necessary to drive adoption. Possible solutions could be: implementation of subsidy schemes and raising awareness among target groups. Policy support could guarantee that the subsidies for Cneutral seeds should be implemented into Eco-schemes. vi. Cost structure Input costs such as fertilizers, pesticides, seed and fuel remain high. There are certification costs for C-neutral seeds. Another challenge is to find suitable varieties for sustainable production. Practices such as reduced tillage (direct sowing), mulching and 41 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 cover crops can be beneficial, but they require testing and investments in new machinery and technology. Advanced solutions such as optical sorters may also be required, adding to overall costs. One possible solution that was mentioned is to direct more resources into variety breeding, so it could be also beneficial for developing a C-neutral seed certification system. To ensure variety purity it is essential to find and implement solutions for soil friendly weed control system, like implementing weeding robots. Policy could support before mentioned variety breeding. Through investment support schemes support technologies that help to produce C-neutral seeds. vii. Key resources Certification standards should be carefully designed and possibly aligned with carbon credit systems. Also, clear guidelines for C-neutral seed production need to be created. Potential practices include cover crops, straw incorporation and using manure. Emerging technologies (such as climate-friendly machinery) are not yet widely available. viii. Key activities Producers need to assess input costs and the carbon balance. Reports and guidelines must be prepared for certification. Obtaining C-neutral certification will be a key step. Raising customer awareness of seed benefits is essential. Political engagement is needed to ensure subsidy schemes that are created to support the adoption. ix. Key partners Key partners include plant breeders, certification bodies, carbon credit buyers, researchers, and policymakers. x. Policy framework At present subsidies are driven mainly by EU requirements. There is a need for dedicated support for C-neutral seed adoption. This support should be comparable to existing measures for environmentally friendly practices such as the use of cover crops. Plant breeding programs and investment support for technology should also be included. The solutions include specific proposals by farmers unions, environmental agencies, research organisation to support the transition to C neutral seed production. Proposals are needed for the next EU subsidy period to ensure the political support to the discussed business model. 48 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 3.6 Denmark: Soil health label (UCPH) 3.6.1 Case study description This case study examined the potential for introducing a consumer-focused soil health label and how it might support new soil health business models. To understand this potential, it is important to consider how labelling influences consumer demand, since food labels can shape purchasing decisions and affect market prices. Soil health labels could impact consumer demand by increasing awareness and knowledge of how farming practices affect soil health–related ecosystem services. As a result, consumers may be willing to pay more for food produced through soil health-oriented agricultural practices. This suggests that soil health labels could serve as an effective component of business models if farmers are compensated for the additional costs of implementing soil health practices through price premiums supported by consumer demand for soil health–labelled products. Product: soil health-labelled food products 3.6.2 Workshop description We conducted the workshop online on August 28, 2025. Participants from both public and private institutions including representatives of farmers, consumers, and government ministries and agencies were invited to gather comprehensive views from a broad range of stakeholders regarding the opportunities and challenges of soil health food labels as potential components of soil health business models. The workshop followed several steps: participants were first introduced to the results of the case study, followed by a discussion of the findings, with feedback recorded as notes. Finally, participants were given the opportunity to discuss opportunities and challenges for scaling up soil health food labels and to suggest potential solutions. Table 11 summarises relevant value chain actors considered for the case study. 49 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 TABLE 11: RELEVANT VALUE CHAIN ACTORS FOR THE DANISH CASE STUDY Value chain stage Primary production (e.g. farmer) Processing of harvested products Intermediary trade / Logistics (e.g. Wholesale) Finishing and Packaging (e.g. Quality control) Sales (e.g. Retail) User Other relevant actors Who? Farmer organizations Consumer and retail company Company or private Government agencies and ministries What? Farmers adopt and implement soil health improving practices, and use soil health labels on food products Consumer and retail companies play an important role in supporting sustainable food labelling practices by transporting, advertising, and selling soil health–labelled food products. Buy soil healthlabelled foods Policy support such as subsidies or tax breaks for farmers for implementing soil health practices 3.6.3 Results – Challenges, solutions and potential policy support i. Customer segments Soil health labels can create value for farmers (through an increased market for labelled foods) and for consumers (through ecosystem services generated by soil health–based agricultural practices). Food labelling is common in Danish grocery stores, but communicating what each label represents is a challenge. For new labels, such as a soil health label, it can be difficult to explain to consumers what soil health means and why the label is important. In other words, translating improved soil health into increased ecosystem services can be challenging, making it hard for consumers to appreciate the value of soil health–labelled foods. Another challenge mentioned by participants concerns administrative costs. Labelling foods generally involves significant administrative expenses, and for soil health labelling, these costs can be even higher. It was also noted during the workshop that soil health may not always equate to increased biodiversity, and this perception may hinder the success of soil health labels. Finally, the issue of quality control was raised, which can further increase administrative costs. The main concern, however, is that developing a new quality control system may not always be feasible. ii. Value proposition Creating value for consumers is challenging, as explaining soil health and its importance for ecosystems, the environment, and climate can be difficult. Value creation 50 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 may also be hindered by the widespread presence of organic labelling in Denmark, which is highly popular. One possible approach could be to integrate the two labels. iii. Channels Soil health labels can be placed on food products, and these foods can be advertised using different channels, such as the internet, mass media, and more. However, the biggest challenge lies in effectively communicating the meaning of soil health labels to consumers. iv. Customer relationship There is a strong customer relationship with organic labelling because consumers appreciate and value it for both human and environmental health. However, introducing a new and unfamiliar label is challenging, as consumers may struggle to distinguish it from existing labels, and an additional label could create confusion in the market. v. Revenue streams If successful, soil health labels can generate income for farmers, or at least offset the costs of implementing them. Capturing a larger market in the future could further increase revenue if consumers are willing to pay more for soil health–labelled foods. However, the challenge lies in whether consumers truly understand the value of soil health labels for environmental and climate goals. vi. Cost structure Introducing a new food label incurs significant administrative costs, which may discourage farmers from implementing soil health practices, especially if they are already engaged in organic agriculture or other sustainable farming practices. vii. Key resources Quality and labelling control require resources in terms of human capital and technology. Collaboration with private actors, such as third-party monitoring organizations, may also be necessary. The challenge is that additional resources may not be available and implementing such measures can be logistically difficult. viii. Key activities Key activities for soil health labelling include monitoring and verifying whether soil health practices are implemented, granting labels to farmers, and collaborating with private wholesalers and retailers to sell the labelled products. However, this requires a 51 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 complex chain of activities within the food value chain, which may overwhelm or distract actors. The popularity of organic agriculture and organic labelling, as well as the high cost of food labelling, may further discourage actors from supporting soil health labels. ix. Key partners Key partners in the implementation of soil health labels include farmers, private organizations working on innovative solutions for sustainable farming practices in Denmark, government bodies responsible for quality control, and wholesalers and retailers for marketing soil health–labelled food products. The challenge is that convincing all these actors to support the introduction of an additional new label may be difficult. Conflicts of interest between organizations may also arise. x. Policy framework There is general policy support for sustainable farming in Denmark. However, policies specifically targeting soil health labels are lacking unless they are integrated into other labelling mechanisms, such as organic labelling. Soil health is being discussed in the context of regenerative agriculture both in Denmark and internationally, so it is possible that, in the future, soil health labels could be justified within this type of agriculture. 3.6.4 Potential Metrics Table 12 summarises potential metrics that were identified during the workshop to quantify the business models success, impact, or effectiveness. TABLE 12: RELEVANT METRICS TO EVALUATE THE BUSINESS MODEL’S SUCCESS FOR THE DANISH CASE STUDY Metric Unit Measured how? Number of farmers Number Own records or third-party registration on the numbers of farmers implementing soil health practices Number of sales Number Records and scanner data from retailers Revenue generated Danish Kroner (DKK) Total sales in monetary terms 52 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 4. General discussion 4.1 Customer segments Across all soil health business models, the main barrier was the difficulty in identifying and reaching target customer groups. Many models rely on niche or fragmented markets (e.g., organic farmers, eco-tourists, carbon credit buyers) with limited growth potential. Expanding awareness among potential customers and diversifying demand bases (e.g., linking to tourism, ecosystem services, or regional markets) were key opportunities. Stakeholder engagement was essential to better define customer profiles and adapt offerings. 4.2 Value proposition A common challenge was translating the environmental benefits of soil health into economic or emotional value that resonates with customers. In several cases, the ecological impact (e.g., carbon sequestration, biodiversity) was not yet perceived as valuable by buyers. Co-development workshops highlighted the need for clearer communication, verified standards (like carbon-neutral or soil-health labels), and diversification of value-added products (e.g., eco-tourism, regenerative branding). 4.3 Channels The distribution and communication of soil health products faced logistical and visibility barriers. Fragmented supply chains and limited marketing capacity reduced market access. In many models, stakeholders proposed developing shared distribution systems, digital marketing platforms, or regional branding strategies. In tourism and local product cases, integrated itineraries or cooperative networks were identified as enablers for scaling up. 4.4 Customer relationships Sustaining long-term, trust-based relationships proved critical but challenging. Scaling often risks losing transparency or local authenticity. Direct engagement (e.g., farm visits, local events, workshops) and community-based branding were seen as effective approaches to maintaining customer trust. Institutional partnerships and local networks strengthened relational stability. 53 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 4.5 Revenue streams Most models faced unstable or fragmented income sources. Fluctuating prices for carbon credits, seasonality in tourism, and limited willingness to pay for sustainable products were recurrent issues. The integration of blended finance models combining public subsidies, private investment, and market-based payments emerged as a key opportunity. Policy alignment (e.g., Eco-schemes, SRG07 measures) was also essential to secure consistent revenues. 4.6 Cost structure High initial and operational costs, especially for certification, equipment, or testing, were major barriers. Many models depend on economies of scale that are difficult to achieve at early stages. Co-development findings emphasized the importance of investment support, cost-sharing among cooperatives, and regional cooperation for shared infrastructure (e.g., machinery, logistics). Technological innovation (e.g., digital tools, automation) can also help reduce costs in the long term. 4.7 Key resources Securing key resources such as knowledge, skilled labour, and capital was a recurring challenge. Several cases faced limited access to qualified staff or advisory services and insufficient financing for scaling activities. Institutional support, training, and knowledge transfer through AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems) and academic partnerships were recognized as enabling conditions. 4.8 Key activities Activities like certification management, stakeholder coordination, and market communication require increasing complexity when scaling. The difficulty lies in maintaining efficiency across expanding operations. Digitalization, transparent data systems, and clear governance structures were proposed as solutions to manage complexity while ensuring environmental integrity and economic viability. 4.9 Key partners The importance of strong partnerships, across farmers, processors, retailers, NGOs, researchers and policymakers, was evident in every model. Weak coordination or de- 54 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 pendency on single actors was identified as a bottleneck (e.g., reliance on one processor or local buyer). Strengthening multi-actor collaboration, cooperative governance, and formal agreements was recommended to mitigate risks and enhance resilience. 4.10 Policy framework Regulatory and policy aspects were both a major barrier and opportunity. Complexity of subsidy schemes, bureaucracy, and lack of alignment between EU and regional policies hindered upscaling. Conversely, cooperation measures (e.g., SRG07), AKIS support, Eco-schemes, and agri-environmental programs were seen as key enablers. Policy innovation, such as integrating soil health into tourism or carbon markets, was suggested to broaden financing opportunities. 55 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 5. Policy brief This policy brief synthesizes the most relevant findings from multi-stakeholder workshops and proposes policy directions for enabling the upscaling of these models through coherent, credible, and farmer-centred frameworks. 5.1. Carbon farming and carbon credit initiatives (Germany and the Netherlands) The German and Dutch experiences reveal that existing voluntary carbon markets fail to provide a robust foundation for long-term agricultural engagement. Low carbon prices, costly verification procedures, and rigid long-term contracts discourage farmers, while the structural “permanence problem”, i.e., the need to guarantee that sequestered carbon remains stored indefinitely, makes these markets inherently fragile. Because carbon storage in agricultural soils is reversible, true permanence cannot be ensured without continuous monitoring and binding land management obligations that are neither practical nor acceptable for most farmers. This limitation points to the need for a fundamental policy shift. Rather than focusing on the sale of carbon certificates, which rely on unverifiable long-term sequestration, greater emphasis should be placed on value chain approaches that reward measurable, short-term co-benefits such as improved soil health, biodiversity, and water retention. In such systems, the environmental benefit becomes part of the product’s value rather than a tradable credit. A company purchasing regionally produced, soilfriendly goods invests in visible, verifiable action rather than in a remote promise of carbon permanence. Policy frameworks should therefore prioritize action-based and hybrid payment systems, combining public and private funding while maintaining flexibility for farmers. Contract termination options for land successors, recognition of cost-effective soil monitoring technologies (e.g., GISand AI-based estimation models), and integration of carbon farming measures into CAP eco-schemes are crucial. These steps would enhance credibility, reduce administrative burdens, and increase participation. The political priority is clear: build trustworthy, farmer-centric mechanisms that reward ongoing stewardship within the agri-food value chain, instead of relying on uncertain and administratively heavy carbon markets. 5.2. Italy – organic matter and sustainable tourism models In Tuscany, multifunctional business models link organic agriculture, aromatic crop cultivation, and eco-tourism. While they improve soil organic matter and foster rural vitality, their scaling is constrained by short tourist seasons, low yields, and weak coor- 56 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 dination among producers. Policy frameworks should promote flexible contracts, hybrid public–private financing, and cooperative measures that strengthen local networks and diversify income sources. Integrating soil regeneration with rural tourism can turn environmental restoration into a tangible and marketable regional asset. Measures under the CAP, such as cooperation schemes (SRG07) and Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS), can support collective investments in harvesting equipment, replanting programs, and local branding. These policies transform soil health from a technical objective into a driver of rural innovation, employment, and cultural identity. 5.3. Estonia – carbon-neutral seed production Estonia’s seed sector shows potential for climate mitigation through carbon-neutral production practices such as reduced tillage, cover crops, and manure use. Yet, uptake is hindered by unclear standards, limited technical capacity, and high investment costs. Policymakers should design dedicated support for carbon-neutral seed adoption, including specific eco-scheme payments; plant breeding programs for varieties, which have higher carbon sequestration potential and lower need for soil tillage to supress crop enemies; and targeted investment aid for precision technologies. Ensuring that these measures are integrated into future EU funding periods would align agricultural input production with Europe’s climate neutrality objectives. 5.4. Bulgaria – rural tourism and soil-protective viticulture In Bulgaria, vineyards integrating agri-environmental measures for soil erosion control combine wine production with rural tourism. However, high production costs, weak marketing, and low consumer awareness of eco-certified wines limit economic viability. Policy should support branding of “soil-friendly wines,” establish incentives for certification under the CAP, and foster vertical cooperation along the value chain. Public promotion of regional wine identity at international events could strengthen consumer trust and create a stable market for environmentally responsible viticulture. 5.5. Denmark – soil health label for food products A Danish pilot explores integrating soil health criteria into food labelling to strengthen consumer awareness and create incentives for sustainable production. Although such labelling holds significant potential, administrative costs and limited consumer familiarity remain major barriers. Embedding soil health information within existing frameworks, such as the Danish Organic Law or Green Denmark Agreement, could acceler- 57 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 ate market acceptance. Tax incentives, consumer campaigns, and cross-sector collaboration would further enhance visibility and help transform soil health into a recognizable quality attribute across Europe’s food markets. 5.6. Conclusions and policy outlook The six examined business models demonstrate that soil health can become a tangible economic asset when policies support practical, credible, and collaborative approaches. Across all cases, three policy lessons stand out: 1. Shift from permanence-based carbon trading to value chain co-benefit models that reward measurable improvements in soil, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience. 2. Combine flexibility and credibility through hybrid financing, transparent monitoring, and shorter, renewable commitments. 3. Integrate soil health across CAP instruments and agri-food policies, ensuring it becomes a visible driver of Europe’s green transition. By aligning economic incentives with ecological performance, European and national policymakers can make soil stewardship both profitable and scalable, turning local innovation into continental impact. 64 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 B) WU BM Canvas components Description Examples of potential challenges for upscaling Cha llen ge No. Step 1: Identify challenges here and describe Mark 3-5 most significant (X) Step 2: Possible solutions Step 3: Possible policy support 1. Customer segments For whom is the BM creating value? Who are the most important customers? Addressing niche markets with limited potential, difficult to reach fragmented segments 1.1 Customers on the Voluntary Carbon Market may not offer high enough prices, the price of carbon credits is too low 2. Value proposition What value is created for the customer, which needs are fulfilled? Creating meaningful value for customers 2.1 Buying carbon credits on Voluntary Carbon Markets may not be sufficient to offset customers’ own carbon footprint 3. Channels Through which channels are the services/products distributed to the customer? Which channels are used for communication about the service/product? Missing awareness of potential customers, visibility of the product, ease of purchase, providing customer support after purchase 3.1 Carbon prices on Voluntary Carbon Markets are low and do not cover costs (and initial reduction in yields) from switching to regenerative agriculture 4. Customer relationships What kind of relationship is built with customer segments or expected from customers? Transparency, establishing strong bonds, building communities 4.1 Voluntary Carbon Markets can be anonymous and do not require long-term commitments from customers 5. Revenue streams What are the revenue streams (e.g., Fluctuating revenue, willingness5.1 Changing (but overall very low) prices on Voluntary Carbon Markets, no reliable income source for farmers can X Paying for farmers’ efforts through value chain payments Blended financing, public funds combined with carbon credit payments from private sources. 65 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 one-time payment or subscription), what are customers willing to pay? to-pay, securing public funding be guaranteed and therefore high risk for the farmer 5.2 Certified carbon credits require long-term (contractual) commitments that farmers may not be willing or not able to accept (e.g., because of the restrictions these LT commitments place on successors OR because farmers are not the owners of the land but they rent in land) X Need for more flexible arrangements that take into account restrictions of farmers to commit to long-term contracts. There is a need for a support structure that allows flexibility to farmers, e.g., through support for farmer group applications for the creation of buffers in case some land is taken out of the long-term commitment. 6. Cost structure Most important costs (e.g., fixed vs. variable)? Which resources are most expensive? Relying on economies of scale (cost savings only with upscaling), dependence on a costly input 6.1 Soil testing (for the certified soil tests that are required for Rabo Carbon Bank projects) is very costly X Technological developments, such as the use of machine learning and simulation of soil organic carbon sequestration based on GIS data on cover crops etc., may allow to reduce the costs for MRV Support the development of these technological innovations, acknowledge the potential and value of these technologies for MRV purposes (also in policy documents and the CRCF framework). 6.2 Besides the cost of soil testing, purely result-based carbon credit markets create a lot of uncertainty for farmers because the soil carbon content can fluctuate over time for various reasons (not just as a result of farmers’ efforts). X It would be better to reward farmers based on the soil management actions that they take, instead of on the results based on soil carbon content only. Current agri-environmental schemes are action-based. These could be extended to better support carbon storage in soils, and be made interesting also for larger farmers that invest in regenerative agriculture (at the whole farm level). In addition, private certification schemes and the EU CRCF regulation could take this into account. 7. Key resources Necessary resources for the BM, physical, intellectual (e.g., patents), human, or financial Investment needs, employees, certification standards, resource constraints (lack of personnel) 7.1 Advisory services need to be targeted at sustainable practices on the farm (not conventional business as usual) – see also 9.1 8. Key activities Necessary key activities for the BM Complexity of coordi8.1 Besides on-farm production adjustments, a key activity is coordinating the selling and 66 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 nating multiple activities, scalability difficult buying of carbon credits. Rabo Carbon Bank is fulfilling the coordinating role in this BM but is increasingly seeking collaboration with wholesalers (value chain actors) to stimulate farmers’ transitions so that coordination can happen through the value chain – see also 9.1 9. Key partners Who are key partners and suppliers? Relationship with farmers, NGOs, organisations; risks on the supply side 9.1 Supporting farmers in the transition towards regenerative agriculture, requires their acceptance of targeted advisory services. However, many farmers rely heavily on conventional farm advice, such as from input suppliers. This makes them sceptical of alternative advisors and methods that are less fertilizer / pesticide intensive X Sustainable transitions have to be supported by all key actors along the value chain. For farming, wholesalers (processing companies) are key trading partners that can offer premium prices to stimulate sustainable practices on farms. These key VC actors can support alternative advisory services. There is a need for knowledge and research on novel technologies and practices (related to soil health on farms and regenerative agriculture) that are not commercially driven. Public research institutes and universities have an important role to play here. 9.2 Premium payments through the value chain is an alternative to the BM of carbon credit trade to stimulate regenerative agriculture. But this requires that supermarkets - which hold a lot of power in the Netherlands because there are only 5 major buying groups – take their responsibility (putting higher standards on the products they buy and sell to consumers, but also to pay fairer prices to actors upstream in the chain in good and bad times) 10. Policy framework Policy framework relevant for the BM Changing regulatory framework, 10.1 Rabo Carbon Bank relies on standards and requirements of industry certification bod- 67 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 competing policy schemes ies, and is therefore less dependent on policy frameworks. However, the EU CRCF Regulation is relevant, and farmers may also benefit from public funding to support their sustainable farm practices. 10.2 For stimulating regenerative agriculture in general, the CAP (eco-schemes and agrienvironmental schemes) is relevant. The new national strategic Plans that will be developed for the new CAP period provide the opportunity to put more emphasis on soil-health improving practices and better reward them through CAP payments. C) UNIPI BM Canvas components Description Challenge No. Step 1: Identify challenges here and describe Mark 3-5 most significant (X) Step 2: Possible solutions Step 3: Possible policy support 1. Customer segments For whom is the BM creating value? Who are the most important customers? Value is created for: – “Hit-and-run” tourists (June– July) seeking photos in flowering fields and buying souvenirs. 1.1 Tourist demand: Visitor flows are highly concentrated during the short lavender flowering season (June–July), with most tourists staying only 2–3 hours. Outside this peak period, attendance drops sharply, leaving farms and local businesses with limited revenue opportunities. Ecosystem value: Although lavender cultivation contributes to soil regeneration and landscape enhancement, this added value is rarely recognized by visitors. X Extend experiences beyond the flowering season and focus more on regenerative tourism and soil recovery: winter birdwatching, hikes, wellness retreats, tastings, clearer road signage, single map, gastronomic events (e.g. the “Cucina povera” festival in Castellina Marittima). Support for coordinated promotion between Municipalities, Rural District, “Colli Pisani” Business Network, and farms through cooperation measures (SRG07), financing a shared calendar and marketing materials. Access to regional sustainable tourism calls to strengthen communication. 68 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 – Experiential tourism (couples, families, small groups) interested in farm lunches, workshops, wellness activities. – Sustainable tourism, visitors motivated by biodiversity, birdwatching, and soil regeneration, interested in the environmental value of the area. – The territory itself, in terms of positive impacts on soil and landscape. 2. Value proposition What value is created for the customer, which needs are fulfilled? Offer an immersive tourist experience linked to the cultivation of aromatic plants able to regenerate soil and produce quality essential oil, within a supply chain that has a positive territorial impact. 2.1 Low yields of essential oil (6–7 kg/ha vs 50 expected); plant mortality (due to pathogens and clay soils); limited range of products sold on farms. X Replanting more resilient species/varieties (true lavender and new essences), renewal of old lavender plantations, diversification of products sold on farms (not just oil). Use of cooperation measures (SRG07) to finance supply chain projects that include replanting and diversification. Support from the knowledge system (AKIS) for advice on resilient and innovative varieties. 3. Channels Through which channels are the services/products distributed to the customer? 3.1 Scattered fields not connected; difficult for tourists without cars to reach them all. Proposal of shuttle/unique itinerary connecting fields and local attractions. Possible coordination among Municipalities – District – Business Network. Cooperation tools (SRG07) to create shared logistics services 69 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Which channels are used for communication about the service/product? Farms scattered across the territory. Web and social communication managed individually by each farm + communication through the Colli Pisani Business Network. The Rural District provides broader agro-food communication, not specific to lavender. Direct sales on farms and distillation in the area by the dedicated essential oil processor, producing essential oils, soaps, and cosmetic derivatives. (e.g. shuttle). Inter-municipal agreements supported by regional calls on soft mobility and rural tourism. 4. Customer relationships What kind of relationship is built with customer segments or expected from customers? The relationship with visitors is partially fragmented. There is a shared coordination and calendar of events among the producers of the 4.1 The Business Network, although active, does not include all producers. This creates heterogeneity in communication and tourist/experiential offer: on one side a coordinated core (the Network), on the other independent actors. Expand the Business Network to include more producers and strengthen coordination with the District, associations, and local administrations through joint events. Activation of specific cooperation measures, such as SRG07 (Cooperation for rural development, local development and smart villages), to finance network governance (coordination, management costs) and joint promotion actions. 70 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 "Colli Pisani" Business Network, especially during the summer flowering period. Producers outside the Network operate independently, resulting in the lack of a fully integrated local offering. 5. Revenue streams What are the revenue streams (e.g., one-time payment or subscription), what are customers willing to pay? Most revenues come from experiential tourism: farm lunches/dinners, guided visits to fields, sales of small essential oil bottles. Additional income from direct sales (subcontracting) of lavender essential oil. 5.1 Essential oil price fixed at 50 €/kg; insufficient farm incomes → the survival of the business model is mainly linked to tourism. X Increase direct sales (through the production of essential oil by toll processing), cosmetic/food products demanded by tourists. Strengthen coordinated paid experiences: meals in the fields, donkey rides, etc. SRG07 measure for short supply chains. Explore private financing channels (local/national sponsorships), and develop a soil regeneration credit/carbon offset model leveraging lavender’s capacity to restore soils. 6. Cost structure Most important costs (e.g., fixed vs. variable)? Which resources are most expensive? Main expenses are agronomic operations, harvesting, and dis6.1 One harvester and one distiller amortized over just 7–8 ha. Small surface forces concentration of harvesting in one short window, often missing the optimal “balsamic time,” reducing oil yield. X Interest in acquiring small farm distillers; evaluate shared second harvester or expansion of production to make harvesting/distillation more sustainable. Use of collective investment measures (SRG07) for joint purchase/management of machinery (harvester, small distillers) and gradual increase in cultivated surfaces. 71 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 tillation. Currently only one harvester and one distiller available in the area. 7. Key resources Necessary resources for the BM, physical, intellectual (e.g., patents), human, or financial Physical resources are limited: no farm owns its own distiller/harvester, cultivated areas reduced due to erosion and plant mortality. Financially, low margins from agriculture do not allow replanting, varietal diversification or tourism infrastructure investments, leaving the model fragile and dependent on external resources. 7.1 Current surface reduced to 7–8 ha due to erosion and natural plant mortality. Multi-year replanting plan for lavender and other medicinal plants to diversify the offer. Focus on the knowledge system (AKIS) for training and innovation. Use of SRG07 to finance integrated projects that include replanting as part of broader supply chain strategy. Rural District and Business Network can contribute. 8. Key activities Necessary key activities for the BM Mainly agronomic operations, with harvesting concentrated in a few days (due to a single machine) and centralized distillation by 8.1 Forced simultaneous harvesting (loss of balsamic time) and yield drop due to high costs and few hectares. A shared calendar for all stakeholders in the supply chain, such as harvester, distiller, and farms. This aspect is closely tied to economic needs (see point 6). Support for governance through program agreements or business network contracts for coordinated harvesting and distillation. As indicated in point 6, this support is linked to a potential increase in cultivated areas, which would make management more economically sustainable. 72 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 one Grower-Distiller Business. Simultaneously, tourist hospitality is managed by some individual farms completely independently, while others do so in a coordinated manner through the Business Network. These activities include field visits, tastings, and direct sales on the farms or rural tourism. Operational management remains fragmented between the farming and hospitality sides, with only partial coordination 9. Key partners Who are key partners and suppliers? The production process relies on two essential services: mechanical harvesting and distillation, each provided by a single supplier. On institutional/promotional side, farms rely on Colli Pisani Business Network and 9.1 “Bottleneck” risk when supply chain depends on a single actor upstream or downstream. Agricultural side: strong dependence on a single distiller and harvester. Tourism side: weak coordination on marketing and services (shuttle, trails) with Municipalities and among actors. X Technical diversification: evaluate shared purchase of a new harvester or seasonal rental; agreement on “balsamic time” among Network, distiller, and harvester. Tourism partnerships: expand Business Network to hospitality, guides, LIPU (winter birdwatching packages); inter-municipal agreement (Santa Luce–Castellina–Orciano Pisano) for events, shuttle, and “Colli Pisani” brand. Governance: technical table District + Region for logistics and marketing; annual reports - SRG07 and cooperation calls for collective investments. - Business Network/District contributions for new supply chain partners. - Support from Region/AKIS help desks for business network contracts and long-term agreements with contractors. 73 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Terre Pisano Livornesi Rural District. Academic support from University of Pisa and research partners (soil and varietal analysis). Collaborations with environmental associations (e.g. LIPU). (yields, tourist presence); technical-scientific partners for annual soil health monitoring. 10. Policy framework Policy framework relevant for the BM The main regulatory framework is the Tuscany RDP 2023–27, with measures for replanting medicinal crops, AKIS training and consultancy, and SRG07 “Cooperation for short supply chains,” funding collective farmer projects, joint machinery purchases, etc. 10.1 Communication gaps between Region and territory leading to missed opportunities; complexity of calls; difficulties with organic certification and bureaucracy for direct sales. Greater information through existing AKIS local helpdesks and coordination with key actors (District). Shift focus from direct replanting measures (not foreseen in CSR) to transversal ones like SRG07 (Cooperation) and AKIS. Broaden financing strategy to actively seek local/regional/national calls not strictly agricultural (e.g. tourism, environment), and to develop sponsorships and carbon offsetting proposals. D) METK BM Canvas components Description Examples of potential challenges for upscaling Cha llen ge No. Step 1: Identify challenges here and describe Mark 3-5 most significant (X) Step 2: Possible solutions Step 3: Possible policy support For whom is the BM creating 1.1 Clients are farmers, who place high importance on achieving profitable 80 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 F) UCPH BM Canvas components Description Examples of potential challenges for upscaling Challenge No. Step 1: Identify challenges here and describe Mark 3-5 most significant (X) Step 2: Possible solutions Step 3: Possible policy support 1. Customer segments For whom is the BM creating value? Who are the most important customers? Soil health labels on foods can create value for both farmers and consumers Addressing niche markets with limited potential, difficult to reach fragmented segments 1.1 Consumers may not value unfamiliar food labels 1.2 Existence of highly popular organic food labels in the market Integrating soil health labels with organic labels 2. Value proposition What value is created for the customer, which needs are fulfilled? Creating meaningful value for customers 2.1 Communicating soil health labels to consumers Effective communication of soil health labels to consumers 2.2 Dominance of organic labelling in the market and potential consumer confusion between organic and soil health labels Integrating soil health labels with organic labels The organic food labelling policy in Denmark 3. Channels Through which channels are the services/products distributed to the customer? Which channels are used for communication about the service/product? Channels: internet, mass media Missing awareness of potential customers, visibility of the product, ease of purchase, providing customer support after purchase 3.1 Making information about soil health and its importance for sustainable agriculture easily accessible 4. Customer relationships What kind of relationship is built with customer segments or expected from customers? Transparency, establishing strong bonds, building communities 4.1 Missing long-term commitments 4.2 The existence of a strong commitment to organic food labels may prevent consumers from valuing soil health labels Integrating soil health labels with organic labels 81 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 5. Revenue streams What are the revenue streams (e.g., one-time payment or subscription), what are customers willing to pay? Consumer demand as expressed through purchase of soul health labelled foods Fluctuating revenue, willingness-topay, securing public funding 5.1 Changing prices for soil health labels X Subsidies and tax breaks for farmers who implement soil health practices The Agreement of Green Denmark: https://mgtp.dk/groent-danmark/english-a-greenerdenmark 5.2 Lack of consumer knowledge about soil health labels, leading to low demand Subsidies and tax breaks for farmers who implement soil health practices The Agreement of Green Denmark: https://mgtp.dk/groent-danmark/english-a-greenerdenmark 6. Cost structure Most important costs (e.g., fixed vs. variable)? Which resources are most expensive? Administrative costs Relying on economies of scale (cost savings only with upscaling), dependence on a costly input 6.1 Significant administrative costs 7. Key resources Necessary resources for the BM, physical, intellectual (e.g., patents), human, or financial Human capital and technology Investment needs, employees, certification standards, resource constraints (lack of personnel) 7.1 Capital and technology intensive control and monitoring mechanism X […] […] 8. Key activities Necessary key activities for the BM Monitoring and verifying soil health labels; collaborations between private and public agencies Complexity of coordinating multiple activities, scalability difficult 8.1 Complex food labelling process involving both private and public agencies, with intensive quality control mechanisms 9. Key partners Who are key partners and suppliers? Farmers, private organizations and ,government bodies Relationship with farmers, NGOs, organisations; risks on the supply side 9.1 Conflict of interests between organizations X Integrating soil health labels with organic labels The organic food labelling policy in Denmark 10. Policy framework Policy framework relevant for the BM Changing regulatory framework, competing 10.1 Integrating soil health into existing and relevant policy frameworks 82 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 The Agreement of Green Denmark: https://mgtp.dk/groentdanmark/english-agreener-denmark The organic food labelling policy in Denmark policy schemes