PowerPoint Presentation

[Audio] "Hello everyone, and thank you for being here today. I'm very happy to have the opportunity to talk to you about the future of funding in digital agriculture, because this topic really sits at the crossroads of several major transitions we are experiencing simultaneously: the digital transition, the green transition, and the transformation of our food systems." "When we say 'digital agriculture', we are not only referring to precision farming or farm apps. We are talking about a much broader ecosystem: data platforms, artificial intelligence, satellite monitoring, decision-support systems, traceability tools, and increasingly, systems that help us manage risk, uncertainty, and sustainability in agriculture." "What I want to focus on today is not the technology itself, but the money behind it. Who funds these innovations? At what stage? Under what conditions? And how does the structure of funding influence what actually reaches farmers and food systems in practice?".

[Audio] "To begin, it's important to understand that the funding landscape for digital agriculture is structurally different from most other technology sectors. Agriculture is capital-intensive, exposed to climate risk, dependent on seasonal cycles, and strongly shaped by public policy." "As a result, digital agriculture has never been purely market-driven. Public funding, regulation, and strategic policy objectives play a much stronger role here than in sectors like consumer tech or fintech." "This has profound implications for innovation speed, business models, and investor behavior, which we will unpack throughout this presentation.".

[Audio] "Horizon Europe is the European Union's main research and innovation funding programme, with a total budget of around 93.5 billion euros for the period 2021 to 2027. This makes it one of the largest public innovation programmes globally." "But beyond the numbers, Horizon Europe is a strategic instrument. It is designed to steer innovation towards societal challenges such as climate change, food security, biodiversity loss, and economic resilience." "For digital agriculture, Horizon Europe often represents the very first point at which ideas can be tested, piloted, and validated beyond the laboratory." Horizon Europe (2021–2027) is the EU's €95.5 billion key funding programme for research and innovation, structured around three core pillars—Excellent Science, Global Challenges/Industrial Competitiveness, and Innovative Europe—supported by a horizontal "Widening Participation and Strengthening the ERA" component to boost research across the Union. Key Pillars of Horizon Europe Pillar I: Excellent Science (approx. €25bn): Focuses on reinforcing the EU's scientific leadership, funding frontier research via the European Research Council (ERC), Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions for training/mobility, and research infrastructures. Pillar II: Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness (approx. €53.5bn): Drives research aimed at societal challenges and industrial technologies, organized into 6 clusters: Health; Culture/Creativity/Inclusive Society; Civil Security for Society; Digital/Industry/Space; Climate/Energy/Mobility; and Food/Bioeconomy/Natural Resources/Agriculture. Pillar III: Innovative Europe (approx. €13.5bn): Focuses on fostering market-creating innovation and ecosystems, primarily through the European Innovation Council (EIC), as well as the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Horizontal Component Widening Participation and Strengthening the ERA: Enhances research performance in less research-intensive EU countries and improves the European Research Area (ERA)..

[Audio] Cluster 6 focuses on one of the most urgent challenges of our time: restoring the health of our planet while ensuring food security and sustainable livelihoods. It aims to reduce environmental degradation, halt and reverse biodiversity loss across land, freshwater and marine ecosystems, and improve the management of natural resources through transformative changes in both urban and rural economies. At the same time, Cluster 6 supports food and nutrition security for all, within planetary boundaries, by harnessing knowledge, innovation and digitalisation across agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture and food systems. These efforts are designed to accelerate Europe's transition towards a low-carbon, resource-efficient circular economy and a sustainable bioeconomy, including forestry. Through targeted research and innovation, Cluster 6 directly contributes to the European Green Deal, supporting key policy frameworks such as the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the Farm to Fork Strategy, the European Climate Pact, and initiatives on sustainable industry and zero pollution. It also aligns with the EU's long-term vision for rural areas and the Sustainable Development Goals, positioning research and innovation as central drivers of ecological resilience, food system transformation and inclusive, sustainable development..

[Audio] Cluster 4 is driven by the vision of Europe leading the development of competitive, trusted and cutting-edge technologies that strengthen European industry while respecting planetary boundaries. Its ambition is to position Europe as a global leader in key industrial sectors, ensuring that innovation supports both economic competitiveness and environmental sustainability across diverse social, economic and territorial contexts. Through strategic investments, Cluster 4 supports the transition towards a digital, low-carbon and circular industrial base, while securing sustainable access to raw materials and advancing next-generation materials. These foundations enable breakthroughs in critical technologies and provide solutions to major societal challenges, reinforcing Europe's resilience, autonomy and long-term prosperity..

[Audio] The European Innovation Council (EIC) was created to identify, support and scale breakthrough technologies and innovative companies that can drive Europe's green and digital transitions. It plays a central role in transforming high-risk, high-impact ideas into market-shaping solutions with global potential. Strategic guidance for the EIC Work Programme is provided by the EIC Board, which for the 2021–2027 period has defined six strategic goals, each supported by clear Key Performance Indicators. These KPIs enable systematic tracking of progress, guide implementation, and inform future actions. Baselines and performance against targets are reported annually through EIC impact reports, ensuring transparency, accountability and long-term strategic alignment..

[Audio] A core ambition of the European Innovation Council is to become the investor of choice for visionary innovators across Europe. This means achieving continent-wide recognition among high-potential start-ups, entrepreneurs and researchers, with particular attention to underrepresented groups, including women innovators and those from less developed innovation ecosystems. At the same time, the EIC aims to mobilise between €30 and €50 billion in investment into European deep tech. By addressing critical financing gaps and strategically deploying the EIC Fund, it seeks to catalyse private capital, strengthen investor confidence, and accelerate the scale-up of transformative technologies with global impact..

[Audio] The European Innovation Council is designed to pull through high-risk, high-impact technologies in critical areas for society and Europe's strategic autonomy. By supporting the most promising deep tech innovations from early-stage research through to commercial scale-up, the EIC helps deliver solutions to major societal challenges while reducing Europe's dependence on external technologies. In parallel, the EIC aims to significantly increase the number of European unicorns and scale-ups. By strengthening support for start-ups and SMEs, it seeks to accelerate growth trajectories that can match—and ultimately surpass—global competitors, particularly in the United States, reinforcing Europe's position as a leader in innovation-driven entrepreneurship..

[Audio] The European Innovation Council aims to maximise the impact of Europe's public research and innovation by building strong partnerships that help translate cutting-edge ideas into market-ready solutions. By commercialising excellence from across the EU research base and supporting the scale-up of start-ups funded through national and European programmes, the EIC strengthens the full innovation pipeline. At the same time, the EIC is committed to operational excellence. Its procedures, speed and decision-making processes are designed to match the expectations of innovators, investors and markets, ensuring agile, efficient and high-quality support for Europe's most promising deep tech ventures..

[Audio] Here you can see more information about the EIC Pathfinder call.

[Audio] And here about the EIC accelerator call..

[Audio] Now, let's pass to EU CAP strategic plans. Each EU country elaborated its own CAP Strategic Plan (except Belgium which has one for Flanders and one for Wallonia). The CAP Strategic Plans include the intervention strategies, and the CAP instruments each EU country will use from 2023 to 2027 to achieve the CAP objectives. They ensure coherence across the CAP instruments, and the strategic and complementary use of resources. In total, EU countries have planned 2 500 interventions in their CAP Strategic Plans. The CAP Strategic Plans and their amendments are approved by the European Commission, which supports the EU countries throughout the process. For their approval, the Commission also assesses whether they contribute to, and are consistent with, the EU legislation and commitments, including those laid out in the European Green Deal. 1 January 2023 marked the entry into force of the 2023-27 CAP and the beginning of the implementation of the CAP Strategic Plans..

[Audio] In this slide you can see the specific objectives of CAP..

[Audio] EIT Food is the largest and most dynamic Knowledge and Innovation Community in the food sector. Its mission is to transform the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed, with the aim of increasing its value for the European community. EIT Food seeks to promote a more sustainable food system through collaboration with trusted partners from the industrial, educational, and research sectors, and by engaging informed and active citizens in its initiatives..

[Audio] EIT Food empowers innovators, entrepreneurs and organisations to transform Europe's food system by connecting them to one of the continent's strongest agrifood ecosystems. Through access to leading businesses, start-ups, universities and research centres, it creates powerful partnerships that turn ideas into impact. EIT Food supports learning and skills development through online courses, education programmes and professional training, helping individuals and teams build the expertise needed to succeed in the agrifood sector. It also enables innovators to move from concept to market by providing structured pathways to launch new products, ingredients and solutions. At the same time, EIT Food fosters dialogue and co-creation with industry, policymakers and citizens through events, digital platforms and public engagement activities, shaping a more sustainable and resilient food system. With expert mentoring, tailored entrepreneurship programmes and accessible funding, EIT Food helps agrifood ventures launch, accelerate and scale — from early-stage ideas to market-ready innovations..

[Audio] EIT Digital Master School offers deep-tech master's degrees with a focus on Entrepreneurship & Innovation at multiple universities across Europe. You choose your preferred study path and get 2 master's degrees in the process! During your studies, you also get to go to an EIT Digital Summer School of your choice to deepen your technical expertise at yet another European destination..

[Audio] The global agrifood innovation landscape has entered a new investment phase. After reaching a peak in 2021, venture capital in AgriFood tech has declined sharply, with funding levels dropping by around 50% by 2023–2024. Investors are now more selective, resulting in fewer deals and smaller average ticket sizes, signalling a shift towards capital discipline and a focus on stronger fundamentals. As a result, agrifood tech today represents only about 5–6% of global venture capital investment. This tightening environment makes access to strategic funding, strong networks and de-risking mechanisms more critical than ever — reinforcing the importance of ecosystem players like EIT Food in helping innovators survive, grow and scale despite tougher market conditions..

[Audio] The current downturn in agrifood investment is being driven by broader macroeconomic pressures. Higher interest rates and persistent economic uncertainty have made capital more expensive and investors more risk-averse. At the same time, weak exit conditions — with fewer IPOs and more cautious mergers and acquisitions — are reducing liquidity and slowing investment cycles. These dynamics particularly affect capital-intensive agrifood business models, which face increased pressure to demonstrate scalability, resilience and near-term viability. In this context, targeted public support and strong innovation ecosystems become essential to sustain momentum and unlock future growth..

[Audio] Despite tighter investment conditions, innovation in agrifood is accelerating around high-impact digital technologies. AI and data-driven platforms are transforming decision-making through advanced forecasting, optimisation and real-time farm management tools. Robotics and automation are addressing labour shortages while enabling more precise, efficient and sustainable operations. At the system level, digital supply chains and traceability solutions are improving transparency, resilience and consumer trust across food systems. Together, these trends reflect a shift toward software-first, scalable business models connected to agriculture — offering faster growth potential, lower capital intensity and stronger returns, even in challenging market environments..

[Audio] As the agrifood tech landscape matures, several once-promising subsectors are beginning to lose momentum—not because the underlying problems have disappeared, but because their business models struggle to scale under real-world conditions. Undifferentiated digital marketplaces were among the earliest to gain traction, promising efficiency and transparency by connecting farmers, buyers, and input suppliers on a single platform. Over time, however, many of these marketplaces converged on the same basic features—listings, price discovery, and logistics coordination—without building defensible differentiation. As a result, competition shifted from value creation to price and incentives, eroding margins and loyalty. Network effects proved weaker than expected in fragmented agricultural markets, and without proprietary data, embedded services, or clear switching costs, many platforms stalled after initial growth. Hardware-heavy solutions without fast ROI faced a different but equally limiting challenge. Precision equipment, on-farm sensors, robotics, and controlled-environment systems often require high upfront capital and operational complexity. While technically impressive, these solutions ask farmers to absorb significant risk before seeing measurable returns. In a sector defined by thin margins, weather volatility, and financing constraints, slow or uncertain payback periods dampen adoption. As capital markets tighten, investors have become more skeptical of businesses that resemble equipment manufacturers rather than scalable technology platforms, further slowing momentum. Finally, models dependent on slow farm-level adoption encounter structural friction inherent to agriculture itself. Farms are heterogeneous, deeply relationship-driven, and cautious about change—especially when new tools disrupt established workflows. Even when solutions clearly work, adoption cycles are measured in seasons, not months. Sales motions remain labor-intensive, support-heavy, and difficult to standardize across regions and crops. This limits the speed at which revenues can scale and makes it hard for startups to meet growth expectations set by venture-backed timelines. Together, these subsectors illustrate a broader shift in agrifood innovation: momentum increasingly favors solutions that deliver clear, rapid economic value, scale beyond individual farms, and build durable differentiation. Those that cannot overcome capital intensity, commoditization, or slow adoption dynamics risk plateauing, regardless of the strength of their original vision..

[Audio] Investor priorities in agrifood tech have sharpened as the sector moves from experimentation to execution. After years of funding bold visions and long-term transformation narratives, investors are now concentrating on fundamentals that reduce risk and shorten the path to returns. Clear revenue pathways have become essential. Investors are no longer satisfied with broad platform stories or "land-grab" strategies that defer monetization. They want to see who pays, how often, and why—whether through subscriptions, transaction fees, embedded finance, or enterprise contracts. Business models must demonstrate repeatable demand and pricing power, ideally with multiple expansion levers over time. Clarity around revenue is now viewed as a proxy for market validation, not just financial planning. Capital efficiency is equally critical in a more disciplined funding environment. Companies are expected to do more with less: lower burn, longer runways, and milestones that can be achieved without continuous capital infusions. Asset-light models, software-first approaches, and partnerships that reduce balance-sheet risk are favored over capital-intensive builds. Investors are closely watching unit economics, customer acquisition costs, and payback periods, prioritizing teams that can grow sustainably rather than aggressively. Finally, quantifiable productivity or cost gains anchor the investment thesis. In agriculture and food systems, impact must translate into economics. Solutions that can clearly demonstrate yield improvements, input reductions, labor savings, or margin expansion—backed by data from real deployments—stand out. Investors increasingly expect proof points expressed in percentages, dollars per acre, or cost per unit, not efficiency claims. Measurable outcomes make value tangible for customers and defensible for investors. Taken together, these priorities reflect a maturing market. Capital is flowing toward companies that pair innovation with discipline—those that can show how their technology drives concrete economic outcomes, scales efficiently, and converts adoption into predictable revenue..

[Audio] A highly fragmented customer base is one of the core structural challenges shaping agrifood technology adoption and scalability. Agriculture serves an extraordinarily diverse set of end users. Crops, climates, farm sizes, and production practices vary widely, making it difficult to design a single solution that works universally. What delivers value for a large irrigated row-crop operation may be irrelevant—or unusable—for a smallholder growing mixed crops under rainfed conditions. This lack of a "one-size-fits-all" model forces companies to customize products, pricing, and support, increasing complexity and cost while slowing repeatability. At the same time, the sector is dominated by millions of smallholder farmers with limited individual purchasing power. Even when a solution delivers clear value, the economics of selling to these customers are challenging. Customer acquisition is labor-intensive, transaction sizes are small, and churn risk is high due to seasonal income volatility. Scaling revenue therefore requires reaching enormous volumes of users, often without the benefit of strong distribution infrastructure or digital penetration. Together, these dynamics weaken classic venture scaling mechanics. Fragmentation dilutes network effects, stretches sales and support teams, and complicates product roadmaps. As a result, companies operating in this environment must either find aggregation mechanisms—cooperatives, enterprises, supply-chain intermediaries—or shift up the value chain to customers with greater purchasing power. Without such strategies, fragmentation becomes a drag on growth, margins, and investor confidence, even when the underlying problem is real and urgent..

[Audio] Regional and regulatory heterogeneity further constrains scale in agrifood technology, especially for companies aiming to operate across borders. Agriculture is deeply shaped by local policy. Data standards, environmental regulations, food safety rules, and subsidy regimes differ widely from country to country—and often even within regions of the same country. What qualifies as compliant data in one market may be unusable in another; incentives that drive adoption in one jurisdiction may be absent or reversed elsewhere. As a result, products and business models rarely transfer cleanly across geographies. This fragmentation raises compliance and localization costs. Companies must adapt software, reporting frameworks, contracts, and go-to-market strategies for each new market, often requiring local legal expertise and on-the-ground partnerships. For smaller teams, regulatory work can consume disproportionate resources, slowing product development and stretching capital. Most critically, regulatory heterogeneity slows cross-border scaling, undermining one of the core assumptions of venture-backed growth. Instead of replicating a proven model quickly, startups face sequential market entry with long learning curves and uncertain timelines. This reduces operating leverage, delays revenue expansion, and makes growth less predictable in the eyes of investors. In practice, winners in this environment tend to either anchor themselves deeply in a single regulatory regime or build modular, compliance-by-design systems that can adapt to local rules. Those that fail to account for regulatory diversity early often find that policy—not technology—becomes the limiting factor on scale..

[Audio] A siloed value chain remains a structural barrier to scale and value creation in agrifood technology. Across agriculture, inputs, production, logistics, finance, and end markets have been digitized in isolation, often by different vendors with narrow mandates and proprietary systems. Input suppliers focus on sales enablement, farm management tools optimize on-field decisions, logistics platforms track movement, and financial services assess risk—yet these systems rarely talk to one another. The result is a patchwork of digital tools rather than a cohesive operating layer for the food system. This fragmentation limits interoperability and constrains network effects. Platforms struggle to become true hubs when data cannot flow seamlessly across the value chain. Without shared standards or incentives to integrate, each solution captures only a thin slice of value, reducing switching costs and weakening defensibility. Farmers and agribusinesses, in turn, face tool fatigue, duplicate data entry, and incomplete insights, dampening engagement and willingness to pay. From a scaling perspective, silos prevent platforms from compounding value as they grow. Instead of each new participant increasing utility for all others, benefits remain localized within narrow use cases. As a result, many agrifood platforms plateau as point solutions rather than evolving into system-level infrastructure. Momentum increasingly favors companies that can bridge these silos—either by embedding deeply into multiple parts of the value chain or by enabling data portability and integration as a core feature. In a sector defined by interdependence, interoperability is becoming a prerequisite for durable platform advantage..

[Audio] Slow technology adoption at the farm level continues to be a fundamental drag on growth for agrifood technology companies. Many farmers face digital literacy gaps, particularly in regions with limited connectivity or among an aging producer population that did not grow up with digital tools. Even when technology is available, comfort with software, data interpretation, and ongoing updates cannot be assumed. Training and support therefore become essential—but costly—parts of deployment, lengthening sales cycles and increasing churn risk. Compounding this is a persistent mismatch between technology complexity and user needs. Products are often designed with advanced features, dashboards, and analytics that exceed what farmers actually want or have time to use. In practice, growers prioritize reliability, simplicity, and clear economic outcomes over sophistication. When tools disrupt established workflows or demand frequent manual input without immediate payoff, they are quietly abandoned after initial trials. These dynamics slow adoption from pilots to full-scale usage. Growth unfolds over seasons rather than quarters, making revenue less predictable and harder to scale. For investors, this translates into longer paths to meaningful market penetration and higher execution risk. Successful companies increasingly respond by designing farmer-first experiences: intuitive interfaces, minimal data entry, automation, and value that is obvious within a single season. In agriculture, adoption is not just a function of innovation—it is a function of empathy for how farmers actually work..

[Audio] Unclear or delayed ROI for farmers is one of the most persistent barriers to adoption in agrifood technology. Many solutions deliver value in indirect ways—through risk reduction, better decision-making, compliance support, or long-term efficiency gains rather than immediate yield increases. While these benefits are real, they are harder for farmers to observe, quantify, and trust, especially upfront. When value is framed as "avoided loss" or probabilistic improvement rather than dollars earned this season, it competes poorly with more tangible investments like inputs or equipment. This challenge is amplified by seasonal revenue cycles. Farming economics unfold over months, not weeks, meaning feedback on whether a technology worked often arrives only after harvest—or later. If weather, prices, or pests dominate outcomes in a given season, the impact of the technology can be obscured, even if it contributed meaningfully. This delays conviction, slows renewals, and makes word-of-mouth adoption less reliable. For technology providers, delayed ROI translates into longer sales cycles, higher churn risk, and pressure to discount or bundle offerings. For investors, it raises questions about willingness to pay and durability of demand. Momentum increasingly favors solutions that can surface value quickly and explicitly—through in-season savings, reduced labor hours, input cost reductions, or clear benchmarks against a counterfactual. In agriculture, the faster value can be seen and measured, the faster trust—and adoption—can scale..

[Audio] Trust and behavioral barriers represent a softer—but no less powerful—constraint on agrifood technology adoption. Farmers are often reluctant to share farm-level data, viewing it as both commercially sensitive and deeply personal. Data about yields, practices, and costs can influence land values, credit terms, insurance pricing, and competitive positioning. In the absence of clear data ownership rules, transparent use policies, and obvious upside for the farmer, requests for data feel extractive rather than collaborative. This hesitation limits the quality and volume of data platforms can collect, weakening product performance and network effects. Alongside this is a broader skepticism toward external technology providers. Agriculture has seen waves of hype-driven solutions that failed to deliver lasting value, leaving behind fatigue and distrust. Many farmers prefer advice from peers, local agronomists, or long-standing suppliers over unfamiliar startups. When technology companies lack on-the-ground presence or agricultural credibility, their tools are often perceived as theoretical or disconnected from real farm conditions. These behavioral dynamics slow adoption even when the economics make sense. Overcoming them requires time, consistency, and alignment—not just better technology. Companies that build trust tend to do so by embedding within existing relationships, offering clear data reciprocity, and demonstrating long-term commitment to the farming community. In agriculture, trust is infrastructure—and without it, even the best technology struggles to take root..

[Audio] "To understand why agri-tech companies scale differently in Europe and the United States, we need to look very closely at the structure of funding itself — not just who invests, but how and when capital enters the system." "Starting with the European Union, the defining characteristic of the funding landscape is the strong reliance on public funding and grants. Programmes such as Horizon Europe and CAP-linked instruments play a central role in financing innovation, especially at early and intermediate stages." "These programmes are extremely effective at de-risking innovation. They allow researchers and startups to explore high-risk ideas, develop prototypes, and run pilots that would be very difficult to finance through private capital alone." "However, this public funding is fragmented across Member States. Each country has its own instruments, priorities, and administrative processes. While this allows for tailoring to local contexts, it also creates complexity for startups trying to scale across borders." "As a result, European agri-tech companies often spend significant time navigating funding rules, reporting requirements, and national differences, rather than focusing purely on growth and market expansion." "Another consequence of this structure is the limited availability of late-stage venture capital and growth funding. Europe has many early-stage funds, but far fewer investors willing or able to write large checks at the scale-up phase." "This creates a situation where innovation is well supported early on, but momentum slows precisely at the point where companies need to grow fast, expand internationally, and build market dominance." "Now, if we contrast this with the United States, the picture looks very different. The US agri-tech ecosystem is predominantly driven by private venture capital. From the outset, funding is structured around growth, market capture, and eventual exit." "Average deal sizes in the US are larger, and follow-on funding rounds tend to happen more quickly once a company shows traction. This speed matters enormously in technology markets, where being first to scale often determines long-term success." "In addition, the US has a strong presence of corporate venture arms. Large agri-input companies, machinery manufacturers, food corporations, and big technology firms actively invest in agri-tech startups." "These corporate investors do more than provide capital. They offer access to markets, data, distribution channels, and, crucially, potential exit pathways." "When we step back and compare the two systems, the contrast becomes clear. In Europe, the funding ecosystem excels at de-risking innovation through public funds, but often struggles to support rapid scale." "In the United States, capital is more risk-tolerant and more commercially oriented, enabling faster commercialization and market expansion." "Neither model is inherently right or wrong. But they produce very different outcomes in terms of speed, scale, and global competitiveness — and understanding these differences is essential when designing funding strategies or policy interventions in digital agriculture.".

[Audio] In Europe, agrifood innovation operates within a highly fragmented market. Multiple languages, regulatory regimes, and farm structures mean companies must localize early and often, increasing complexity and cost. This fragmentation weakens the scalability that venture investors typically seek. At the same time, strong data protection frameworks—while critical for trust and governance—add compliance overhead and slow experimentation with data-driven models. Combined with smaller average farm sizes, these factors reduce per-customer revenue potential and slow ROI-driven adoption, making growth more incremental and capital-intensive. In contrast, the United States presents a more favorable environment for rapid scaling. A more homogeneous market and regulatory structure allows startups to expand nationally with fewer adaptations. Farms are generally larger and better capitalized, giving them higher purchasing power and a greater willingness to invest in new technology. When solutions demonstrate clear yield improvements or cost savings, adoption tends to be faster, reinforcing investor confidence in revenue growth and unit economics. These dynamics help explain funding asymmetries between the two regions. U.S.-based companies are often perceived as having clearer scaling paths and faster payback, attracting larger checks and later-stage capital. European startups, by comparison, are often pushed toward capital efficiency, partnerships, and policy-aligned models earlier in their lifecycle. Ultimately, neither system is inherently better—but they reward different strategies. The U.S. favors speed and scale, while Europe favors resilience, compliance, and long-term alignment. Understanding these structural differences is critical for founders raising capital and investors assessing risk across geographies..

[Audio] When we talk about funding ecosystems, it's not just about how much money is available. It's also about expectations, risk culture, and, very importantly, exits. This is where some of the most significant differences between the European Union and the United States become visible." "Starting with the European Union, the investment culture in agri-tech tends to be relatively conservative. This is not because of a lack of innovation — on the contrary, Europe produces a very high volume of high-quality research, pilots, and early-stage startups in digital agriculture." "The challenge is what happens next. In Europe, there are relatively few high-profile exits in agri-tech. We see fewer acquisitions at large multiples, fewer IPOs, and fewer visible success stories that clearly demonstrate how and when investors can realize returns." "This matters because exits send signals. When exits are rare or modest, return expectations remain cautious. Investors become more selective, rounds stay smaller, and risk tolerance decreases. This creates a feedback loop where promising companies struggle to access the capital they need to scale." "As a result, many European agri-tech companies rely on blended finance or public–private funding mechanisms during the scale-up phase. These instruments are extremely valuable — they keep innovation alive and aligned with public goals — but they often cannot move as fast or as aggressively as private growth capital." "Now, if we contrast this with the United States, we see a very different dynamic. In the US, exit pathways in agri-tech are clearer and more frequent. Startups can realistically aim for acquisition by large agribusinesses, input suppliers, machinery companies, or even tech firms. IPOs, while still selective, are seen as plausible outcomes rather than exceptions." "Strategic buyers in the US actively scout agri-tech startups. They view innovation as something to be acquired and integrated, not just partnered with. This creates earlier exit opportunities and provides founders and investors with clearer endgames." "Over time, these exits create success stories. And success stories matter enormously, because they reinforce investor confidence. They shape expectations, attract new funds, and normalize larger, riskier investments in the sector." "So when we step back and look at the bigger picture, the contrast becomes quite clear. Europe can be described as an innovation-rich but scale-poor ecosystem. It excels at generating ideas, pilots, and early technologies, but struggles to consistently turn them into large, global companies." "The United States, by contrast, operates as a scale-oriented ecosystem. It is structured around growth, acquisition, and exit, with stronger momentum once companies reach market traction." "This difference does not mean that one model is inherently better than the other. But it does mean that funding strategies, policy interventions, and expectations need to be tailored very carefully to each context.".

[Audio] Macro signal The accelerating frequency and severity of climate shocks—including droughts, floods, and heat stress—has become a defining macro trend for agriculture. These disruptions are no longer episodic; they are structural. As a result, yield variability and farm income volatility are rising, undermining predictability across the entire food system, from on-farm production to downstream supply chains and insurers. Investment implications This volatility is reshaping capital allocation. There is growing demand for climate-smart digital tools that help farmers anticipate, adapt to, and manage risk rather than simply optimize for average conditions. Solutions such as precision irrigation, localized climate forecasting, stress detection, and decision-support systems are moving from "nice to have" to essential infrastructure. These technologies also show strong alignment with ESG, climate adaptation, and resilience mandates, making them attractive to a broader pool of capital. Importantly, public and development finance are increasingly crowding in private investment, de-risking early adoption through grants, guarantees, blended finance, and policy support—especially in vulnerable regions. Why investors care From an investor perspective, resilience-oriented solutions reduce systemic risk. By stabilizing yields and incomes, they protect not just farmers but lenders, insurers, processors, and commodity markets. This risk-mitigation characteristic makes climate adaptation technologies defensible even in downturns. Moreover, these solutions have long-term relevance across crops, geographies, and farm sizes. Climate stress is universal, ensuring durable demand and reducing dependency on any single market. For investors seeking both financial returns and real-world impact, climate resilience sits at the intersection of necessity, scalability, and longevity—making it one of the most compelling theses in agrifood today..

thank you!. TALLHEDA has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101136578. Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them..