A soil-moisture sensor, a more resilient crop variety, an early-warning system for plant disease and a new way to organise local sales share one test: they prove their value in real conditions, not in a laboratory. On 8 September 2026, the European Commission presented a strategy designed to narrow the gap between research and use. It combines two frameworks: AgRI 2040 for agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and Food 2040 for the wider food system.

The announcement may sound remote from daily work. Yet it addresses practical questions. How can farms save water without shifting a problem elsewhere? How can a pest be detected sooner? How can a proven technique move from one farm to another? How can innovation remain accessible to farms that cannot afford a large investment? The strategy begins with a straightforward observation: producing knowledge is not enough when that knowledge is hard to test, understand, finance or adapt locally.

What are AgRI 2040 and Food 2040?

They are not new agencies or grants that farmers can apply for today. The Commission describes them as complementary frameworks that will steer European research and innovation towards 2040. AgRI 2040 covers farming, livestock, forests and rural areas. Food 2040 extends across processing, packaging, distribution, retail, food services, consumption, waste and recycling, as well as fisheries and aquaculture.

Bringing these areas together matters. A technology can reduce an impact in the field while creating another during processing or transport. Conversely, a logistical or commercial innovation can make a local crop viable by giving it a market. Treating farms and food systems as connected parts is intended to prevent isolated answers.

Six shared priorities shape the approach: competitiveness and scaling startups; food security, resilience and preparedness; natural resources and circularity; food and feed safety, nutrition and health; fairness; and global cooperation. Three cross-cutting enablers sit beneath them: governance, technologies, and territories and communities.

Why does Europe emphasise the journey from research to practice?

Europe already funds extensive agricultural and food research. The Commission’s reference page says Horizon Europe’s Cluster 6 — covering food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture and environment — has a budget close to €9 billion for 2021-2027. It also lists more than 295 projects and 45 Living Labs funded through the EU Soil Mission.

The difficulty is therefore not only the number of projects. It is the journey between a promising result and routine use. A method may perform well at an experimental station but be uneconomic on a small farm. A digital tool may be accurate but too complicated, rely on poor connectivity or require data that users do not want to share. A variety may succeed in one region but struggle in another soil. A preservation method may protect food but fail to fit existing logistics.

The staff analysis accompanying the strategy records calls for more attention to implementation, trust, fairness and the real conditions of adoption. More than 700 responses from farmers and other stakeholders informed AgRI 2040. For Food 2040, 80 representatives joined a workshop in March 2026, while 59 of 63 written submissions identified new or insufficiently covered issues. These figures do not show that every request was accepted. They do show that deployment is no longer treated as a small final step.

Which research topics are in scope?

AgRI 2040 sets out eight preliminary areas. They range from soils and agroecosystems to cropping and livestock systems, the bioeconomy, multifunctional forests, rural areas, stronger value chains, and digital technologies, artificial intelligence and robotics. The list is broad by design. It still needs to be refined with stakeholders, including at the AgRI 2040 conference in Brussels on 24 and 25 September 2026.

Food 2040 identifies six areas: place-based food systems; healthy and sustainable diets; resource efficiency and zero pollution; food environments and consumer empowerment; scaling innovation and fair business models; and aquatic food.

For a farmer or market gardener, this may lead to trials on soil health, precise water management, early disease detection, crop protection or lower-input equipment. For a local authority, it may involve a public kitchen, by-product use, food-waste prevention or keeping supplies moving during disruption. For residents, it also concerns access to healthy food, understandable impact information and fair local markets.

What does a Living Lab change?

A Living Lab is not simply a conventional laboratory moved outdoors. Researchers, farmers, advisers, companies, public authorities and sometimes citizens define a problem, test possible solutions in real conditions and evaluate results together. Constraints are evidence too.

Consider sensor-guided irrigation. A useful experiment does not measure water savings alone. It also examines cost, installation time, maintenance, data clarity, reliability during a heatwave, yield effects and repairability. A resilient variety must be compared across soils, climates and practices, then assessed for quality, yield and markets. A local platform must be tested for accessibility, trust, logistics and how value is shared.

This approach reduces the risk of designing an elegant but unusable answer. It does not remove uncertainty: one local trial is not universal proof. It can, however, document where a solution works, for whom, at what cost and with which trade-offs.

How can knowledge travel more effectively?

The strategy builds on existing structures. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems, or AKIS, link research, education, advice and practice. Multi-actor projects bring users into the work from the beginning. Thematic networks turn scattered results into usable material. The Commission says 65 thematic networks have already been funded through Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe.

This translation is essential. A hundred-page scientific report may not help someone deciding tomorrow when to irrigate, which rotation to test or how to limit a disease. Advisers, peer demonstrations and pilot farms can turn a finding into an understandable protocol, then return practical difficulties to researchers. Knowledge must travel in both directions.

Clear data rules matter as well. Digital tools can support more precise decisions, but their value depends on measurement quality, interoperability, cost and trust. A model’s recommendation should remain explainable. Claimed benefits need to be weighed against the time and money required, while user skills matter as much as technical sophistication.

What the strategy does not change yet

AgRI 2040 and Food 2040 set a direction; they are not an application window open on 9 September 2026. The Commission says implementation is expected through Horizon Europe 2028-2034 and relevant parts of the future European Competitiveness Fund, without prejudging negotiations on the EU’s next long-term budget. Funding amounts, calls, eligibility rules and detailed schedules therefore remain to be developed.

Innovation should not be confused with technology. A new producer partnership, an advisory method, a fairer contract or shared logistics can be as innovative as a robot. Conversely, a connected device is not automatically sustainable. Its energy use, lifespan, repairability, data, cost and any displaced impacts still need scrutiny.

Research also cannot replace a coherent agricultural policy, a viable income, access to land or suitable infrastructure. It can improve decisions and reduce some risks. It cannot correct every imbalance in a food chain on its own.

What should farms and territories watch next?

The first task is to describe needs precisely. “Use less water” might become: maintain a particular crop with less irrigation without degrading soil or shifting risk into the following season. “Reduce waste” might become: find a market for unpredictable surpluses within a distance compatible with freshness. A clearly framed problem is easier to connect to a trial, an Operational Group or a future call for projects.

Stakeholders can then watch three signals: future Horizon Europe work programmes, the way AgRI 2040’s action areas are refined after the September conference, and national or regional measures connecting these priorities to AKIS networks. Particular attention should go to small organisations, low-resource solutions and open results, so innovation can travel beyond a handful of demonstrators.

Why local food networks belong in this research

Food 2040 explicitly recognises place-based food systems. That matters because innovation is not limited to production. It can match irregular supply with nearby demand, organise the sharing of a surplus, shorten a journey, give value to a small batch or help several producers share a solution.

Within that landscape, Seeed enables individuals and producers to give, sell or swap harvests and local products with people around them. This kind of connection does not replace research or organised supply chains. It can complement them when small harvests, occasional surpluses or highly local needs fall outside conventional channels.

The most useful promise of AgRI 2040 is therefore not a fully automated farm. It is innovation judged by practical value: tested with the people concerned, adapted to place, understandable, affordable and able to strengthen resilience without creating new dependencies. The next programmes will show whether that ambition becomes lasting practice.

Sources

Image: “Farmers in Field with Ipad”, United Soybean Board, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY 2.0. Source page and attribution details.