EU Court of Auditors

EU funds, 1 billion for innovation in agriculture but industry and marketing in the projects

ECA report on the PEI-Agri Fund 2014-22: 4,000 projects that produced useful innovations or were adopted on a large scale. Resources in industrial transformation and marketing actions

by Giorgio dell'Orefice

26 February 2026

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

A billion in funds to boost innovation in agriculture has resulted in projects that are not very innovative and that only partially involve farmers. This is the laconic conclusion of a report by the EU Court of Auditors on EU instruments to enhance agricultural productivity and sustainability through innovation (EIP-Agri). Instruments that have not fully exploited their potential.

EU judges: few useful results from investments

"Despite the fact that between 2014 and 2022," reads the ECA report, "national and EU funding of almost EUR 1 billion was channelled to stimulate innovative practices in agriculture, the initiatives rarely succeeded in producing useful, practical or widely adopted innovations.

The European Innovation Partnership

the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-Agri), introduced in 2012, is financed by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as well as the EU's research and innovation policy (Horizon Programme). Under the CAP 2014-2022, the instrument has supported over 4,000 innovative projects aimed at improving productivity and sustainability through collaboration between farmers, researchers, consultants and agribusinesses.

"The concrete needs of farmers were not taken into account"

"Innovation," commented the Court's member in charge of the audit, João Leão, "is essential if the agricultural sector wants to improve its economic, environmental and social sustainability. But the instruments put in place to enhance innovation at farm level have not made the best use of the allocated resources. Moreover, some opportunities have not been seized: for example, the concrete needs of farmers have not been taken into account, despite the fact that direct involvement of farmers increases the likelihood of success'.

70 projects implemented in Spain, France, the Netherlands and Poland

The Court's auditors conducted a data-based analysis and examined a large sample of 70 projects in Spain, France, the Netherlands and Poland. The Court found that innovation potential was rarely a decisive criterion in project selection and that there was generally little involvement of farmers and insufficient attention to their needs in terms of innovation.

A case of success: dry rice in Spain

A conclusion that was contrary to the few successful cases such as the dry sowing techniques for rice in Spain. This cultivation method at the end of the trial was extended to the entire agricultural area. "But fundamental," add the EU judges, "was the direct involvement of farmers, a circumstance that increased not only the probability of success but also the quality of the innovation produced.

Little agriculture focused on processing and marketing

The Court also noted that almost a third of the projects examined had a weak, if any, link to agriculture: some of them focused on areas such as industrial food processing or the development of brand strategies.

"In Poland," the report goes on to say, "a project concerning the industrial production of butter made only a modest contribution to the economic viability of local milk producers; in Spain, another project had the sole objective of improving the brand image of a supermarket chain. In addition, in the Court's opinion, more than half of the projects failed to generate successful innovations: many did not produce concrete effects, responded to niche needs or benefited mainly individuals. The Court also found some cases where funds were used to support investments that not only did not produce clear benefits for the sector more generally, but would probably not have been undertaken in the absence of the EU funding'.

Lack of connection to research and innovation funding

Another weak point of the initiative was the dissemination of results, which the Court considers as a missed opportunity. "Only in about half of the projects, in fact, was the knowledge produced shared," the EU judges concluded, "and only six of the 18 projects that achieved useful results generated innovations that were then adopted on a large scale. Finally, the lack of synergies with other EU funding for research and innovation (Horizon 2020) was noted: none of the 70 projects examined used resources from Horizon 2020, despite the fact that more than EUR 1.5 billion had been allocated for the 2014-2020 period for research in the agricultural and forestry sector'.

Giorgio dell’OreficeVicecaposervizio
- LinkedIn
- Email
Luogo: Roma
Lingue parlate: italiano, inglese
Argomenti: agricoltura, agroalimentare, made in Italy, vitinicoltura, olio
Scheda autore
Trust project