It’s great to see an economic perspective brought into the circular bioeconomy discussion. That said, I do wonder how practical the social cost-benefit framework you propose really is when it comes to valuing non-market outcomes like biodiversity or long-term soil regeneration. These are notoriously hard to quantify, especially across different geographies and farming systems. How do you see this framework holding up in regions where data is sparse or uncertainty is high?
Also, while you touch on equity and propose compensation mechanisms for those who might be disadvantaged by the transition, it feels like these concerns come in a bit late in the process. Shouldn’t equity be more central to the policy design itself rather than something we patch up afterward?
And finally, the framework seems to assume that producers and consumers will respond to incentives in predictable, rational ways, but given the behavioral barriers and institutional lock-ins you describe earlier (like risk aversion, entrenched habits, or policy inertia), can we really expect economic tools alone to drive this transition? I’m curious how your model might evolve if it took more cues from behavioral economics or complex systems thinking.