CODECS Knowledge Accelerator: The Digital Transition: Policy Pathways for Sustainable Agriculture

1 CODECS has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation Programme under Grant Agreement n. 101060179. Views and opinions expressed are 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. On 25 June 2025, the European Association for Innovation in Local Development (AEIDL) organised the second CODECS Science-Policy Workshop on “The Digital Transition: Policy Pathways for Sustainable Agriculture.” Held under the umbrella of the CODECS Knowledge Accelerator, the event brought together around 95 stakeholders to reflect on how digitalisation is transforming agriculture, from governance systems and power dynamics to everyday farming practices. Opening the session, Serafin Pazos Vidal (Senior Expert at AEIDL) explained that the webinar aimed to create a space for cross-project dialogue between the CODECS and BEATLES initiatives, both of which are approaching the final year of implementation. While CODECS focuses on the sustainability of digitalisation in agriculture, BEATLES examines transitions towards climate-smart agriculture. By bringing together these two perspectives, the event sought to explore common challenges, highlight policy gaps, and compare the enabling environments for digital and sustainable transitions through CAP across the EU. 25 JUNE 2025 ONLINE PRESENTATIONS AND RECORDING HERE 95 PARTICIPANTS (research, public authorities, advisors, business, rural communities, other EU-funded projects, etc.) 31 COUNTRIES If you see this icon, click to see the presentation If you see this icon, click to see the video ORGANISER: The Digital Transition: Policy Pathways for Sustainable highlights report 25 JUNE 2025 Introduction Cite as: Ntabuhashe, M., Iglesias, M., Pazos-Vidal, S., (2025). CODECS Knowledge Accelerator: Cybersecurity in Agriculture: balancing risks, costs & benefits. Highlights’ report. 2 Opening speech Gianluca Brunori University of Pisa & CODECS Coordinator In his opening remarks, Professor Gianluca Brunori set the stage by introducing the core ambition of the CODECS project: to examine the multidimensional impacts of digitalisation in agriculture, not only economic, but also social and environmental. This comprehensive view, referred to as sustainable digitalisation, recognises digitalisation as a profound social transformation that must align with broader sustainability goals. Pr. Brunori challenged the popular image of digitalisation as a seamless web of sensors, software, and data-driven solutions revolutionising farm operations. While these technologies offer great potential, he emphasised that they must respond to real societal needs, rather than being driven solely by technological possibilities. Effective digitalisation, he argued, is less about the tools themselves and more about ensuring they function well within a coherent system, with clear benefits and equitable access. He pointed to major structural changes underway in European agriculture. Over the past two decades, the number of farms has dropped from 15 million to 9.1 million, with a clear trend toward land concentration and an ageing farming population. Only 12% of farm managers are under 40, raising questions about digital readiness and generational renewal. Digital adoption across farms remains uneven. While many farmers may use smartphones to access basic weather or market information, only a minority are deeply integrated into the digital ecosystem. Pr. Brunori highlighted the diversity of farming contexts (large vs. small, certified vs. non-certified, connected to global markets vs. more isolated) and stressed that digital policies must be contextualised accordingly. To explore this diversity, CODECS has engaged with 20 Living Labs across Europe, capturing a wide spectrum of digitalisation levels and farming types. The project aims to map both the costs and benefits of digital solutions across these varied contexts, and to identify what works, and for whom. Importantly, digitalisation must not be limited to production. Gianluca Brunori highlighted other areas with high potential for innovation, such as logistics, supply chain management, communication, marketing, and administration. For example, the forthcoming compulsory Digital Field Notebook will affect every farmer in the EU, raising urgent questions about readiness and support. He closed by posing several key policy questions: • How can digitalisation policies address the diversity of farming systems? • How can they avoid widening existing digital divides? • Should we prioritise high-tech tools for a few, or low-cost solutions for many? • How can public policies and funding mechanisms be integrated to support digital transformation effectively? • And how can we measure the return on public investment in digital agriculture? These questions, he noted, are central to CODECS’ ongoing research. This workshop was an opportunity to open this dialogue more broadly with the wider policy and research community. Figure 1. Typologies of farming. 3 Evangelia Mourmoura, Team Leader for Digitalisation at DG AGRI, provided an overview of the EU’s evolving policy landscape for agricultural digitalisation. She framed her presentation within the broader Vision for Agriculture and Food 2040, which identifies digitalisation as a key enabler for building a competitive, resilient, and sustainable agri-food sector. Digitalisation, she stressed, is not simply about deploying tools and technologies, it represents a deeper transformation that reshapes farming practices, governance structures, data ecosystems, and the role of rural communities. To support this transition, the European Commission is currently developing an EU Digital Strategy for Agriculture, aimed at overcoming critical barriers such as high costs, limited digital skills, fragmented infrastructure, and persistent distrust in data sharing. Two studies are currently informing the development of this strategy. The first is a foresight study carried out by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), designed to explore the ‘Long-Term Implications of Digitalisation on EU Farmers and Rural Communities’. The second is a survey-based study, also conducted by the JRC, which collected data from over 1,400 farmers across nine Member States. Preliminary results show that while basic tools such as digital field records and management software are widely used, more advanced technologies, such as soil sensors, drones, and robotic feeding systems, have much lower adoption rates. Moreover, the study revealed that most data collection on farms remains paper-based or digitised only through basic spreadsheets, with limited use of automated systems. Data sharing is also minimal, especially with public authorities, researchers, or financial institutions, reflecting an ongoing lack of trust in the broader data ecosystem. Barriers to adoption identified by the survey include high technology costs, limited awareness of available solutions, and inadequate digital skills. Interestingly, while reducing operational costs remains a driver of adoption, many farmers also cited the need to meet regulatory and legislative requirements as a key motivator for integrating digital tools into their operations. EU policy landscape for agricultural digitalisation Evangelia Mourmoura DG AGRI, European Commission Figure 2. Barriers and drivers of adoption. Dr. Mourmoura highlighted the central role of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in facilitating this digital transition. In addition to providing financial support through investment measures and agri-environmental schemes, the CAP mandates that Member States deliver advisory services on digital issues and integrate tools such as the Farm Sustainability Tool for nutrient management. Member States also have the option to design knowledge-transfer and training measures to improve digital competencies among farmers, while cooperation-based tools such as EIP Operational Groups, LEADER, and Smart Villages further support innovation at the community level. However, she emphasised that the CAP does not operate in isolation. Other EU funding programmes (including Digital Europe, Horizon Europe, the Connecting Europe Facility, and the Recovery and Resilience Facility) also contribute to the digital transformation, especially in areas such as connectivity and infrastructure. Beyond financial instruments, Evangelia Mourmoura underscored the importance of the broader legislative context. Key legal frameworks such as the Data Governance Act, the Data Act, and the Open Data Directive are helping to define a trustworthy and interoperable digital space in agriculture. One of the most promising initiatives under development is the Common European Agricultural Data Space, which aims to facilitate secure and value-driven data sharing across the EU agri-food system. She also pointed to upcoming Commission strategies, such as the AI Continent Action Plan, the Apply AI Strategy, and the Data Union Strategy, that will further influence how artificial intelligence and big data are integrated into the agricultural sector. Dr Mourmoura concluded by emphasising that the EU’s digital strategy for agriculture must build on existing frameworks while actively addressing fragmentation, complexity, and inequality in adoption. An enabling policy environment, grounded in trust, cooperation, and targeted investment, will be essential for ensuring that digitalisation delivers tangible benefits for farmers, rural communities, and the wider food system. 4 Mar Delgado, Professor at the University of Córdoba, presented key findings from CODECS’ ongoing research into national policy environments for digital agriculture. Together with Antonio Hurtado (also from the University of Córdoba), she leads the analysis of how various European and non-European countries are supporting or hindering digital transformation in farming through public policies and institutional frameworks. The research draws on a combination of national policy screenings, a review of past project recommendations, and over 70 interviews with policy makers, experts, and agricultural stakeholders across the 18 countries that are part of the CODECS project. A first draft report was published in March 2024 and revealed several structural insights. Notably, recommendations made a decade ago are still highly relevant today, underscoring a slow pace of policy innovation or implementation. Pr. Delgado highlighted that countries can generally be grouped into three categories based on digital uptake and technological maturity. These differences are shaped by factors such as affordability, digital literacy of farmers and advisors, and the readiness of supporting institutions. Crucially, digitalisation in agriculture tends to mirror a country’s broader level of digital infrastructure and governance. The findings show that while connectivity is improving across Europe, it remains a challenge in remote and mountainous areas. Despite growing data collection efforts by public and private actors, much of this data is not yet leveraged for decision-making, due to limited integration with decision support systems. The lack of granular (e.g., soil-level) data was also flagged as a barrier. One key insight from the interviews is that farmers often adopt digital tools not for innovation, but out of necessity, mainly to comply with CAP requirements. The CAP has become a driver of digitalisation, but there is frustration with rising complexity and concerns over increased bureaucracy. Many small farmers expressed reluctance to share data due to mistrust and fears of misuse. Pr. Delgado stressed that while policy frameworks and national CAP Strategic Plans are essential, more is needed to support collective approaches to adoption. Peer-to-peer learning and demonstration farms emerged as more effective than traditional training. Access to finance also remains limited, especially for smaller or less technologically advanced farms. The study calls for a greater focus on trust, data governance, and a supportive policy ecosystem. Mar Delgado concluded by emphasising that digitalisation is a gradual, multi-stage process. It cannot succeed through public or private efforts alone; it requires a strong partnership across sectors, institutions, and communities. Key Findings on Policy Environments for Digital Agriculture Mar Delgado University of Cordoba Figure 3. Digitalisation levels in CODECS countries. 5 Blanca Casares from AEIDL presented insights from the Horizon Europe project BEATLES (Behavioural Change Towards ClimateSmart Agriculture), focusing on how current EU policies align with the transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) and the adoption of smart farming technologies. Her contribution highlighted the need for a systemic and coordinated policy environment that supports sustainability goals while addressing climate, environmental, and productivity challenges. In her presentation, Ms. Casares emphasised the policy relevance of 2024–2025, marked by key developments such as the Vision for Agriculture and Food, CAP simplification proposals, and upcoming policy reforms. She introduced three AEIDL policy documents that inform this work, including a recent brief examining how EU policies act as drivers or barriers for CSA. BEATLES operates across five use cases in countries such as Spain, the Netherlands, and Lithuania, each assessing five specific CSA practices, ranging from precision and organic farming to renewable energy and sustainable irrigation. Through analysis of national CAP Strategic Plans, regulatory frameworks, and over 30 stakeholder interviews, the project mapped policy interventions supporting these practices and evaluated their implementation across pillars I and II of the CAP. For instance, eco-schemes such as carbon farming and diversified crop systems were identified as key instruments under Pillar I, with budgets ranging from 1% to 21% of national CAP allocations. Investments under Pillar II (targeting farm modernisation and environmental commitments) ranged from 0.1% to 12.5% across the five countries. In addition to assessing concrete policy tools, Ms. Casares discussed a broader mapping of 23 EU policies, including the EU Digital Strategy, Biodiversity Strategy, CAP, and Farm to Fork Strategy, against the three CSA pillars: productivity, climate adaptation, and mitigation. The analysis revealed that several EU policies (e.g., CAP and Farm to Fork) already support all three CSA goals, while others, such as the Nitrates Directive and Water Framework Directive, play more targeted but essential roles. This exercise underscored both the cross-sectoral potential of existing frameworks and the remaining gaps that limit policy coherence. Blanca Casares concluded with a call for a more unified vision and stronger policy integration to meet the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate and sustainability targets. She stressed the need for simplifying and harmonising the CAP without weakening existing environmental safeguards, and for improving capacitybuilding efforts at all levels, from policymakers to on-the-ground advisors. Importantly, she argued that digitalisation must be aligned with sustainability, focusing on farm needs rather than technological supply. Initiatives like the Common European Agricultural Data Space and AgriData are poised to support this transition by enabling better input use, efficiency, and climate responsiveness. Her presentation reinforced a central theme of the workshop: that digital and climate-smart transitions must be approached together, through coherent, inclusive, and farm-centric policy frameworks. EU Policy alignment for the transition to climate-smart agriculture and smart farming Blanca Casares European Association for Innovation in Local Development (AEIDL) Figure 4. Overview timing EU policies. 6 The workshop on “Policy environment for digital agriculture” primarily discussed the challenges and opportunities in advancing digital transformation within EU agriculture, particularly in relation to the CAP. A significant systemic barrier identified is that many EU countries with average digital performance struggle to effectively implement agricultural digitalisation projects, even when policies are in place. This points to a deeper issue of lack of digitalisation policies integration and a general feeling that technology often does not match the specific needs of farmers, or is built from a perspective that overlooks farmers as potential technology users. Participants acknowledged the slow farmer adoption of digital technologies, primarily due to several intertwined factors. Farmers, especially the average farmer who is 57 years old in the EU, often lack the time, skills, and resources to engage with smart applications for tasks like fertilising or watering. While cheaper technologies like apps see higher adoption, the high costs associated with crop and livestock technologies significantly impede digitalisation, particularly for small farms. Furthermore, a critical barrier is the insufficient role of CAP advisors, as they frequently lack the necessary training on digital tools and technologies, which echoes the earlier point about advisors needing deeper knowledge. This also contributes to a general lack of knowledge and trust among farmers regarding digital solutions. The discussions also highlighted issues related to the localisation and relevance of support structures. It was strongly argued that local authorities need to be more involved in agricultural dissemination to “find the farmers”. Existing Digital Innovation Hubs were deemed largely ineffective for agriculture, being located in capital cities and managed by university teachers, rather than fostering local innovations by farmers for farmers. In contrast, good practices identified included knowledge centres that operate via peer work by other farmers, and the potential for cooperatives to drive digitalisation as they focus on small-scale farmers and facilitate knowledge pooling and resource sharing. In that sense, participants recognised that solutions need to be tailor-made to the value chain and context. A key aspect of the discussion was the imperative to pair digitalisation with climate vulnerability. This involves integrating climate risk data, leveraging resources like the European Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA) and risk hubs, and enabling Member States to act as resilience hubs, sharing tailored tools and strategies. The need for open, localised data systems was emphasised to ensure this transformation is inclusive and useful on the ground. While Member States are undertaking significant promotional efforts, digital literacy remains a fundamental barrier. Looking forward, there were significant proposals for reorienting the CAP. It was suggested that the CAP should focus less directly on the farmer as the digitalisation beneficiary and instead prioritise supporting the services for farmers. This implies a shift towards strengthening the support ecosystem. Additionally, for developing effective technologies, there is a clear need for IT professionals to work directly with agronomists and farmers. Additionally, participants also noted the importance of understanding the pre-adoption, adoption, and post-adoption stages of digital tool. Countries like Ireland, Estonia, Spain, Netherlands, and Belgium were identified as innovators in CAP digitalisation, though it was acknowledged that their progress is often driven by factors like the cheap availability of telecoms data, which may not be replicable across all agricultural contexts. Policy environment for digital agriculture Facilitated by Antonio Hurtado (UCO) Workshop: Mapping the impact of digitalisation on agriculture The second part of the event was dedicated to a workshop, where attendees were split into two groups to further discuss finding from the morning, focusing on policy environments for digital agriculture and policy interventions for climate-smart agriculture. 7 Policy interventions for climate-smart agriculture Facilitated by Blanca Casares (AEIDL) The second workshop underscored significant challenges and opportunities regarding the CAP effectiveness in fostering CSA adoption among European farmers, alongside vital considerations for its future direction post-2027. A primary concern identified was the absence of explicit CSA references within existing EU legislation, which is perceived to hinder its effectiveness in driving widespread adoption of CSA practices. While there’s a general expectation that the CSA concept has been introduced by Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), there appears to be a missing clear guide from the EU on management tools for farmers to select from, indicating a lack of an aggregated system on the food system side. In contrast, the Dutch approach was highlighted as a good practice due to its systematic framework where farmers’ commitments to specific practices are directly linked to rewards, an approach very similar to CSA principles. Despite the CAP’s existing connections to CSA principles, farmer adoption rates of these practices and technologies remain slow across Europe. Workshop participants identified several barriers as contributing to this slow uptake. Firstly, they noted a low awareness among entrepreneurs and farmers regarding CSA and its associated benefits, alongside criticism that too few practices are adequately incentivised for crop adaptation. Secondly, the complexity in measuring the effectiveness of interventions further complicates efforts to encourage adoption. A particularly crucial barrier highlighted is the lack of deeper knowledge among advisors, which directly impedes the effective implementation of CSA practices. Attendees highlighted the need for representative advisors in regions who possess expertise in the relevant technologies, understand their operational mechanics, and can facilitate communication, necessitating proper training and guidance. Furthermore, the limited timing for interventions, often restricted to just one year, poses a significant challenge, as it constrains the achievement of meaningful results and the disaggregation of impacts within multi-factor systems designed to bring about change. The political agenda, where eco-schemes are present but not considered progressive enough, also plays a role in the slow pace of change. The discussion also extensively covered the role of digitalisation and its impact on CSA adoption. The slow uptake of digital technologies directly affects the adoption of CSA practices, with concerns raised that the EU is not sufficiently supportive in this area, pressing clarification of legal aspects. Key structural needs identified include the absence of a unified digital FarmBook and a need for improved broadband access. Looking ahead, “game changers” for enhancing CAP performance and monitoring include the development of an AgriData space, ensuring coherence when designing CAP strategic plans, and better alignment with the implementation of other strategies. These digital advancements also tie into critical considerations such as budget allocation for data storage and the establishment of a code of conduct for data sharing. For the post-2027 CAP, participants emphasised the need for fundamental structural or policy reorientations to more effectively integrate CSA’s holistic objectives and ensure coherence with broader EU green and digital objectives spanning from 2030 to 2050. This includes designing transitions in close collaboration with advisors. The importance of incorporating behavioural insights and fairness considerations into the design of the next CAP was also stressed as a means to improve its effectiveness in encouraging this pivotal shift towards climate-smart agricultural practices. 8 In conclusion, the meeting affirmed that policies play a crucial role in agriculture digitalisation, with EU legal strategies boosting adoption, though national legislative support is also vital. The consensus was that digitalisation is a continuous process, not an end goal, requiring time and effort. Overcoming the identified divides and enhancing farmer skills and competencies remain critical challenges. A joint effort between public and private sectors is essential for a real boost in agricultural digitalisation, ensuring a fair and forward-looking digital transition. The CODECS workshop concluded that while digital transformation and climate-smart agriculture present two major, often overlapping, challenges, the consistency in identified problems and differences across the EU indicates a fertile ground for further work. With the new CAP proposals soon to be unveiled, this is a timely moment for the recommendations from projects like CODECS and BEATLES to influence future policy. As highlighted by Merveille Ntabuhashe in her concluding remarks, the workshop was organised under the CODECS Knowledge Accelerator, a platform designed to facilitate knowledge exchange and collaboration. The primary goal of this accelerator is to ensure that all stakeholders have access to the latest insights, tools, strategies, and policies to effectively tackle change and ensure the sustainable digitalisation of agriculture. Further events under the Knowledge Accelerator are planned after the summer, and interested parties are encouraged to join the community to stay updated on advancements in digital agriculture Conclusions & next steps Merveille Ntabuhashe AEIDL The two workshops highlighted a consistent need for improved adoption information and communication at national and local levels to reach final beneficiaries. There is a strong and consistent demand for literacy, capacity building, and training not just for farmers (especially given the demographics of older farmers), but also for advisors (both public and private networks), managing authorities, and paying agencies. Civil servants need to be better trained on the sector’s needs and new ways of designing and measuring results. A significant challenge in agricultural digitalisation is the huge variability across the EU in terms of farm size, farmer age, regional idiosyncrasies, governance frameworks, geography, and even competing national priorities (e.g., resource diversion due to geopolitical conflicts). As one participant aptly summarised, “What suits a Spanish farmer doesn’t suit Estonian farmer”. Report back & Open Discussion Moderated by Serafín Pazos Vidal AEIDL