Summary
1. Introduction. 2. EU Funds as a Policy Instrument in the Context of Agrifood Innovation. 3. The Focus of EU Funds on Agrifood Innovation. 3.1 Horizon Europe. 3.2 CAP funds. 4. Sustainable Development as a Guiding Star: Purpose and Limits of Funding Agrifood Innovation. 5. Conclusions.
1 Introduction
âAgrifood innovationâ is not a predefined domain of legal intervention of the European Union (EU). It is neither mentioned by the EUâs founding Treatiesâthe Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)ânor is there a specifically dedicated legal basis or, even, an ad hoc normative regime regulating it. Nonetheless, if intended as âinnovationâ within âthe agrifood systemâ of the Union, the topic assumes relevance for the EU action. This emerges clearly in the Commissionâs Communication, âA Vision for Agriculture and Foodâ, where innovation is considered fundamental for the future of the EUâs farming and food sectors.1
In EU law, a variety of legal acts provide definitions of innovation. Although they may present slight differences depending on the specific purposes of each actâs normative regime, they do not significantly diverge. A good example, useful for this work, is the one presented in Regulation 2021/819:
Innovation means the process, including its outcome, by which new ideas respond to societal, economic or environmental needs and demand and generate new products, processes, services, or business, organisational and social models that are successfully introduced into an existing market or that are able to create new markets and that provide value to society.2
Interestingly, the term âinnovationâ here refers to both the activity of innovating and the outcome of such an activity, which respectively represent two distinct moments in the innovation process.3 Also, it must be noted that the definition includes a policy orientation of innovation towards certain societal interests and objectives.4
As for the notion of an âagrifood systemâ, the Commission refers to it as one of the 14 industrial ecosystems identified in the updated New Industrial Strategy. It is described as covering:
[A]ll operators in the food supply chain (farmers, food industry, food retail and wholesale, and food service) and their suppliers of inputs and services (seeds, pesticides, fertiliser, machinery, packaging, repair, transport, finance, advice, and logistics).5
The scope of the âagrifood innovationâ concept in the EU legal order is, thus, remarkably broad, touching upon several domains of the Unionâs action. In fact, within the EU legal framework, âfoodâ is classically seen as a multifaceted issue, falling within the scope of multiple EU policies and normative fields.6 The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and the internal market regime play important roles, but also policies covering health, trade, environment, competition, consumer protection, intellectual property, cohesion, research, and industry may address food or food-related issues.7 This explains why the agrifood sector is one of the âmost heavily regulated economic sectorsâ in the EU,8 making it difficult to draw a comprehensive picture of the EU food legal discipline. Among the mentioned EU policies, one is specifically dedicated to innovation: the EU Research and Technological Development policy (referred to hereafter as the âresearch policyâ).9 However, most of the policies mentioned above may entail issues concerning innovation. Consequently, it is reasonable to claim that, within the EUâs legal order, agrifood innovation represents a topic composed of many components, linked to different areas of EU law.
Moreover, since innovation refers to the innovating activity and its outcome, it is subject to various lines of normative intervention, each dealing with one of these two moments. On the one hand, EU law steps in downstream of the innovation process to regulate many issues concerning the marketability of the products that are the fruit of innovation.10 This is visible, for example, in the case of so-called âNovel Foodsâ,11 or in that of food produced through innovative biotechnology techniques.12
On the other hand, EU law also plays an upstream role in the innovation process, addressing the innovation activity itself. As the present study will demonstrate, the key instrument at the EUâs disposal to promote innovation in the agrifood system is its budgetary funds. Moving on from the above, the chapter focuses on the role and the use of EU funds in this field, exploring the legal framework of the EUâs action in fostering agrifood innovation through its spending power, instead of its regulatory one. To this end, Section 2 will examine the main features of the EU funds as a policy instrument in this context, with special reference to the cases of Horizon Europe and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds, representing the two main EU funding programmes addressing innovation.
Subsequently, Section 3 will bring the analysis to a more substantial level, illustrating in detail the space that Horizon Europe and CAP funds devote to agrifood innovation. Section 4 then moves to the purpose of innovation, focusing on the orientation towards sustainability which characterises agrifood innovation funding instruments and its main implications, especially regarding the interplay between innovation and precaution, and the limits to innovation. Finally, the main findings are summarised in Section 5.
2 EU Funds as a Policy Instrument in the Context of Agrifood Innovation
A variety of means are available for the EU to carry out its policies. In the legal sphere, this includes normative and non-normative (ie soft law) measures. It can also rely on tools with both a legal and financial nature, such as EU funds. By using these funds, the EU channels financial resources, gathered mainly from Member Statesâ contributions,13 towards EU objectives according to criteria set at the supranational level.
Currently, more than 40 EU funding programmesâthe so-called âbudgetary galaxyâ of the EU14âexist covering a wide range of sectors and policies. These programmes are funded through the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the long-term budget of the EU (which typically spans a seven-year period).15 The creation of each funding programme requires a dedicated, legally-binding act that establishes the fund, outlines its specific functioning rules, and sets its objectives.16 Like all legal acts adopted by the EU institutions, these acts require appropriate legal bases in the Treaties, depending on the Union policies under which the funds are established.17
Agrifood innovation is among the objectives that various EU funds serve. As shown in the previous section, such a topic can be addressed (more or less intensively) by several EU policies and, consequently, by an array of funding programmes.18 The two main programmes among these are Horizon Europe and the CAPâs funds,19 which illustrate well the role that EU funds play as a policy instrument in the context of agrifood innovation.
Horizon Europe was established for the financial period of 2021â2027,20 with a double-policy legal basis, under the EU research policy and the EU industrial policy.21 Its general objective is to âdeliver scientific, technological, economic, and societal impact from the EUâs investments in Research and Innovation (R&I)â.22 In broad terms, it can be described as providing financial support to R&I projects in different areas, including the agrifood system, as discussed below in Section 3. With a budget of nearly 95.5 billion EUR, Horizon Europe represents the main funding tool of EU research policy. Indeed, as anticipated, allocating funding could be a helpful measure the EU can employ to reach its policy goals, of which the promotion of scientific and technological advances is one.23 In accordance with this goal, Article 179 TFEU provides for the creation of a European Research Area (ERA) as the main aim of the EU research policy and, in pursuing it, the EU should carry out a set of activities âcomplementingâ the action of Member States in this field.24 In fact, given that the EUâs role is supportive in nature, it has the power to act on research and technological development, without preventing the Member States from doing the same.25 The EU should thus cooperate and coordinate Member State action, with the EUâs role being to ensure that its policy and national ones are consistent.26 In a similar vein, EU industrial policy consists of supporting and coordinating the action of Member States through âspecific measuresâ aimed at pursuing the objective of the policyâto ensure the conditions for industry competitiveness27âwithout harmonising the laws and regulations of the Member States.28 Horizon Europe corresponds to one of these specific measures. It is therefore no accident that a funding programme such as Horizon Europe is a central instrument in the context of both research and industrial policy. This is due to the nature of the competences the EU has in this domain,29 where the EU shall refrain from setting strict and uniform mandatory standards. Indeed, instead of more top-down rule-making, the research and industrial policies are conducted through other instruments, including the use of budgetary resources of the EU, which, while âsofterâ, remain effective.30
In short, Horizon Europe enacts the EUâs mandate to promote and support research and innovation by financing relevant projects. This activity takes place via direct contact between the EU and funding recipients; in fact, Horizon Europe is mostly implemented under the âdirect management regimeâ.31 Accordingly, the Commission is responsible for all the implementation steps, including the evaluation and selection of the funded activities, the disbursement of the fund, and the control over it. These duties are carried out directly by the Commission or through the executive agencies it has created, which are considered extensions of the Commission itself. Thus, the EU (through the Commission) is directly in charge of Horizon Europeâs political or administrative discretionary choices at all stages, from the establishment of the programme to its implementation.
As for CAP funds, they represent the most important instrument of EU agricultural policy and one of the longest-standing EU funding instruments. And at over 386 billion EUR (in the current MFF), it accounts for roughly one-quarter of the EU budget. CAP funds consist of two funding programmes, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).32 The first is mainly dedicated to direct payments for Member State farmers, while the second finances national-level interventions for rural development. So, unlike Horizon Europe, these funds are not prima facie intended to support R&I activities. Indeed, CAP funds primarily aim to pursue the CAPâs general objectives,33 for which research and innovation can be instrumental. Innovation is thus addressed by the CAP not as an end per se, but as a way to reach its more general goals. Interestingly, the CAP was the first policy for which the Treaty of Rome mentioned scientific research as a means to pursue its objectives,34 whereas Article 41 TFEU now explicitly envisages the possibility of the EU adopting measures under the CAP framework to pursue effective coordination of research efforts.
The use of financial investment as a policy instrument in the CAP domain is not due to the EUâs lack of other possible instruments. Indeed, the agricultural policy falls under the shared competence of the EU,35 meaning that in the context of the CAP, the EU is endowed with powers that are more cogent than those within the research and industrial fields. Accordingly, EU intervention within the framework of the CAP is not limited to a supportive or coordinating role and, once it takes place, supersedes any autonomous initiatives of Member States. The fact that funding programmes represent the main means of EU actionâeven in this context where the EU is also endowed with fully-fledged regulatory powersâunderscores the potentialities the EU perceives this tool as possessing. As noted by de Witte:
The current EU funding landscape is marked by the increased eagerness of European institutions to use EU funding in a strategic way so as to advance Europe-wide policy objectives rather than (or in addition to) redistribution among the Member States.36
In fact, the EAGF and the EAFRD are not only about handing out money to farmers or rural communities. Rather, their general objective is to improve âsustainable development of farming, food, and rural areasâ in the âeconomic, environmental, and social spheresâ,37 with research and innovation being instrumental in this sense.38 It is on these premises that, as will be illustrated in Section 3, CAP funds address innovation issues, namely through EAFRD resources.
Against this background, CAP fundsâ approach of introducing innovation into the agricultural sector can be reconsidered under what de Witte describes as the âpolicy steering role of EU fundingâ which characterises CAP funds too.39 In this sense, funds are utilised by the EU to guide policy choices made at the national level by Member States and other stakeholders. It must be noted that the EU does not manage CAP funds directly, as is the case with Horizon Europe. EAGF and EAFRD are implemented according to the âshared management regimeâ40 under which the programmesâ implementation jointly falls on the Commission and Member States. More precisely, according to the current CAP fundsâ new performance delivery model, each Member State shall adopt a National Strategic Plan (NSP) explaining and justifying how the finances will be used nationally.41 The NSPâs should adhere to the objectives and basic rules of EAGF and EAFRD and must be approved by the Commission.42 The funds are then managed by the Member Statesâ national authorities, which select the beneficiaries and disburse the resources, while the Commission supervises all operations. The results are then subject to regular monitoring and evaluation of performance and results by the Member States and, in a second stage, by the EU. Consistent with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, under the described performance delivery mechanism the Member States are thus endowed with a certain flexibility in deciding the interventions to be funded, with an emphasis shift âfrom compliance with detailed EU-level rules towards ⦠achieving results against the policyâs common objectives, defined and agreed at EU levelâ.43
3 The Focus of EU Funds on Agrifood Innovation
3.1 Horizon Europe
Horizon Europe corresponds to what Article 182 TFEU calls a âmultiannual framework programmeâ of the research policy,44 which is to be established by a legislative act (Regulation 2021/695, HE Regulation)45 with the following goals: to determine the scientific and technological objectives and relevant priorities for EU action in the research field; to define the broad categories of activities to be carried out; and to set the overall funds to finance selected R&I projects.46 The detailed rules for the framework programmeâs implementation (concerning operational objectives, project duration, and budgets) are provided in the âspecific programmeâ, contained in a decision adopted by the Council.47 Under the framework of Horizon Europe, the EU finances R&I projects of selected beneficiaries through grants and other funding forms (eg, procurement). Eligible activities are those that intend to pursue the research objectives listed in Article 3. Any legal entity may apply for funding. As discussed previously,48 the Commission is the main institutional actor managing the entire funding process, supported by the European Research Council (ERC), the European Innovation Council (EIC), and the European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT). The EIT is assigned operational tasks covering education, business creation and acceleration services, and innovation-driven research projects, mainly working through Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICâs).49
The agrifood system occupies an important place among Horizon Europeâs thematic areas. Indeed, it is one of the sectors that receives the most funding (around 10 billion EUR), permeating the entire programmeâs articulations. Horizon Europe is structured in three pillars: 1) Excellent science; 2) Global challenges and European industrial competitiveness, and 3) Innovative Europe.
âExcellent scienceâ consists of funding researchersâ work and formation experiences, to, for instance, support early-stage researchers and sustain the creation and diffusion of scientific excellence. The ECR is the main arm of the pillar and, with a budget of 16 billion EUR under the current programme, funds thousands of R&I projects in several fields, including the agrifood system.50 Pillar two, âGlobal Challenges and European Industrial Competitivenessâ, aims to stimulate and support R&I solutions to sensitive issues affecting seven selected areas, or âclustersâ. Cluster 6 among these is dedicated to âFood, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmentâ. Financed with nearly 9 billion EUR, Cluster 6 covers seven fields of intervention, all of which are bound to the agrifood system.51 One of these seven fields, âfood systemsâ, deals with safety, security, and sustainability issues concerning food production and consumption.52 Finally, the third pillar, âInnovative Europeâ, is not thematically organised, rather it aims to foster all forms of innovation with a special focus on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEâs). It includes the funding activities of EIC and EIT, some of which are expressly focused on agrifood innovation. For instance, among the funding calls launched by EIC, one targets projects on nature-inspired alternatives for food packaging and films, while another concerns projects aimed at obtaining food from precision fermentation and algae. As for EIT, in 2016 it started a KIC specifically focused on food, called âEIT Foodâ.
Furthermore, âmissionsâ and âEuropean Partnershipsâ can be established to implement the programme, in particular its second pillar.53 The missions focus on five predetermined thematic areas, one of which relates to âSoil Health and Foodâ. The European Partnerships can be co-programmed, co-funded, or institutionalised. They are grouped because of their thematic link to the seven clustersâ fields. Of 49 European Partnerships, eight pertain to food-related matters under Cluster 6 (EIT Food should be added to this group since it is formally qualified as an âinstitutionalised partnershipâ).
Interestingly, Article 180 TFEU requires EU actions in the research policy context to ensure the involvement of all actors taking part in the innovation process, including the private sector, encouraging the work of undertakings, research centres, universities, and researchers. Horizon Europe embraces this attitude, which is reflected in the multi-actor approach that is expected to be followed by activities funded under Cluster 6,54 including involving those who are:
[E]ssentially the (end-) users of the project results who are backed up by any other useful intermediaries and actors who can contribute with further expertise and innovative ideas relevant to the topicâs objectives, and support communication and dissemination.55
Finally, it is worth noting that Horizon Europe should be implemented in synergy with other EU funding programmes relating to different EU policies, including the CAP.56
3.2 CAP Funds
Although the two CAP funds, ie the EAGF and the EAFRD, support diverse kinds of interventions with different functions, they have common objectives and follow the same set of rules, which regulate their functioning and their performance delivery mechanism.57 As anticipated, the programmesâ implementation centres around the adoption of NSPâs by Member States, which contain the interventions to be funded under both of the funds and are subject to the same performance monitoring and assessment framework.
It has been mentioned that, under the CAP, innovation is considered a functional part of the more general objectives of the policy. This is reflected within CAP fund rules, in particular in Article 6 of Regulation 2021/2115. The norm lists the specific objectives of the EAGF and the EAFRD through which the general objectives of the funds (enshrined in Article 5 of the regulation) shall be pursued. Among those specific objectives, the second paragraph of Article 6 includes:
[T]he cross-cutting objective of modernising agriculture and rural areas by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation, and digitalisation in agriculture and rural areas and by encouraging their uptake by farmers, through improved access to research, innovation, knowledge exchange, and training.58
Hence, in light of the quoted provision, innovation, at large, is instrumental to agricultural modernisation, which in turn is a cross-cutting, specific objective that contributes to the reach of the EAGF and EAFRDâs general objective.
More specifically, agricultural innovation is addressed by CAP fund rules by two main, interconnected sides. One side relates to the infrastructural and networking dimension. It revolves around the European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP),59 which is a âpolicy and networking initiative designed to speed up innovation on the ground through the interactive innovation modelâ.60 This model corresponds to the same multi-actor approach found in Horizon Europe. The EIP is integrated into the structure of CAP networks, which are established at the European and national levels, respectively by the Commission and each Member State.61 In the background of EIP, there are the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKISâs) of the EU and the Member States, which are âthe combined organisation and knowledge flows between persons, organisations, and institutions who use and produce knowledge for agriculture and interrelated fieldsâ.62 The EU and Member Statesâ AKISâs thus represent an environment and driver for agricultural innovation to grow and take root.63
The second side concerns the financial dimension. In particular, EAFRD resources may be used by Member States to fund different types of interventions aimed at pursuing the cross-cutting objective of agricultural modernisation,64 including on agri-environment-climate commitments.65 In addition, Member States may grant support for cooperation in preparing and implementing projects of EIP operational groups.66 These groups can include different actors carrying out a plan to develop or implement an innovative project.67
Remarkably, Member Statesâ efforts towards agricultural modernisation are embedded in the performance delivery mechanism of the funding programmes for both the planning and monitoring and evaluation phases. Indeed, each NSP should contain a section describing âthe elements that ensure modernisation of the CAPâ,68 including an illustration of how the AKIS is organised at the national level and the Member Stateâs strategy for the development of digital technologies in agriculture and rural areas.69 Furthermore, achievements resulting from the cross-cutting objective of modernisation are assessed by the common indicators that form the basis of the performance framework of the NSPâs objective.70
Specularly to the HE Regulation, Regulation 2021/2115 affirms the need for synergies between the use of EAFRD funds and Horizon Europe, to âmake the best use of research and innovation results, in particular those stemming from projects funded by Horizon Europe and the [EIP], leading to innovations in the farming sector and rural areasâ.71 The EIP is placed at the centre of the funding programmes interaction,72 together with the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR), which was established by the Council in 1974 in order to strengthen the coordination of agricultural research in Europe (candidate and associated Countries may be observers),73 also referring to the lines of action funded under the research policy.
4 Sustainable Development as a Guiding Star: Purpose and Limits of Funding Agrifood Innovation
From the above, one may conclude that the EU legislator has taken agrifood innovation seriously in drafting the design of Horizon Europe and CAP funds. This does not come as a surprise, as it is fully in line with the EU agenda on agrifood matters within the wider context of the EUâs sustainability transition, as emerges from the relevant EU policy papers in this field.
R&I and other innovation aspects are defined as âcritical to achieve the objectives of the European Green Dealâ.74 Accordingly, the Farm to Fork Strategy stresses the importance of research, innovation, and technology as key drivers to encourage the transition towards sustainability in the agrifood system.75 In both cases, EU funding is referred to as an important instrument of this transition. The point is further explored in Food 2030,76 which provides a âvision and a policy narrativeâ for the role of R&I in reaching sustainable, healthy, and inclusive food systems. The report outlines ten pathways to guide EU action following the EU Green Deal and the UNâs Sustainable Development Goals (SDGâs), as defined in the 2030 Agenda.77 Food 2030 thus represents the strategy that frames food-related initiatives under Horizon Europe, and which is also recognised by the HE Regulation. In fact, according to it, the general objective of the programme on scientific and technological development and industrial competitiveness is meant to contribute to âthe realisation of Union objectives and policies, to tackle global challenges, including the SDGâs by following the principles of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreementâ.78 This is made tangible in all the programmeâs components relating to the agrifood system, which present multiple references to sustainability as a priority towards which efforts should be directed. The strategy echoes CAP fund goals, which view innovation as a driver of agricultural modernisation which, in turn, supports the general objectives of the fundsâthe development of an agricultural model that is sustainable economically, socially, and environmentally and thus contributes to the 2030 Agenda.79 All in all, it has been observed in this paperâs introduction that innovation is not a neutral notion in the EUâs conception: it is oriented towards social good by its very definition. The pursuit of sustainability of the agrifood system thus answers the question about what kind of innovation is fostered through the EU funds and to what end. In short, it gives substance to the idea of innovation and prevents it from being an otherwise empty or ambiguous flag.
The consequences of innovation being an empty objective can be visualised if innovation is viewed as a force that potentially contrasts with another one: precaution.80 Precaution finds legal acknowledgement in EU law through the precautionary principle.81 This is intended to guide the action of authorities to prevent serious adverse effects on the environment and human and animal health that may arise from circumstances of scientific uncertainty. More specifically, it applies when âthere are reasonable grounds for concern that potential hazards may affect the environment or human, animal or plant health, and when at the same time the available data preclude a detailed risk evaluationâ,82 And it could require abstention from action if necessary. Although provided in the context of EU environmental policy,83 the principle informs the entire EU legal framework,84 including the EU research policy. Indeed, the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe expressly mentions it by listing, among the operative objectives, the promotion of âresponsible R&I, taking into account the precautionary principleâ as one.85 The precautionary principle may thus pose bounds to R&I activities supported by the programme, and, in this sense, it could constrain the pursuit of innovation in the agrifood system.86 The possible tensions between the precautionary principle and innovation have been highlighted with the introduction of the so-called âinnovation principleâ by the Commission.87 Contrary to the precautionary principle, the latter is not endowed with normative force.88 Rather, it is a policy approach,89 ensuring that âthe innovation dimension is considered when preparing and implementing EU legislationâ.90 This reflects the high importance paid to innovation, especially within EU regulatory activity,91 which might otherwise be at odds with an overly cautious attitude caused by strict application of the precautionary principle. To conclude, if agrifood innovation were to be pursued as an end in itself, it could clash with the precautionary principle and the societal interests the latter protects. On the contrary, considering the above, it is possible to claim that the orientation of R&I in the field of agrifood innovation towards sustainable development, in principle, obviates the potential contradictions between innovation and precaution, the first being aligned with the aims of the second.
However, the sustainability orientation of agrifood innovation does not mean the absence of limits or conditions to its support through funding. On the contrary, it underscores their presence. Accordingly, agrifood innovation should be aligned with the different components of sustainable development in accordance with an integrated approach.92 Indeed, as the Commission stressed, innovations to be introduced in the agrifood sector should be assessed âin an inclusive way that also considers social, ethical, economic, environmental, and cultural aspects of food innovationâ.93
In particular, two forms of constraints to agrifood innovation funding, relevant to this discussion, can be found in the EU regime. The first relates to the context in which financed activities take place. It is linked to sustainability as a general objective of CAP funds. More specifically, the delivery of EAFRD resources destined for (inter alia) innovation purposes requires recipients to respect preexisting requirements concerning agricultural sustainability. Indeed, some types of interventions under the EAFRD are subject to the beneficiaryâs compliance with a set of requirements, standards, and rules about the fight against climate change, the protection of the environment, human and plant health, animal welfare, and social and labour conditions of agricultural workers.94 In other words, the EAFRD can be used to support certain interventions concerning innovation on the condition that the beneficiaries do not otherwise undermine the sustainability of their agricultural activity.
The second form of constraint regards the boundaries within which innovation can be pushed. This limitation concerns other important interests whose protection may justify a restriction on innovation, and which contribute to defining the sustainability of the financed activities. The HE Regulation contains specific provisions in this sense. Namely, it excludes funding for research in certain fields where human lifeâs dignity is at stake.95 Moreover, it provides for the respect of ethical principles and relevant EU, national, and international laws,96 including the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,97 so as not to endanger human rights and other priorities such as âthe need to ensure protection of the environment and high levels of human health protectionâ.98 Similarly, CAP fund rules require Member States to ensure the design of the interventions in their NSPâs complies with the Charter.99 Accordingly, the Commission shall assess the conformity of project proposals under Horizon Europe,100 and that of the Member Statesâ NSPâs,101 using the listed criteria.
At least in part, this reflects the need to follow the above-mentioned integrated approach in the pursuit of the SDGâs.102 Nonetheless, the challenge of ensuring the sustainability of agrifood innovation lies in the evaluation and balancing of the various aspects of sustainability on a case-by-case basis. As explained by Voigt, âintegration is eventually about making compromises. But these compromises have to be sustainable andâeven more cruciallyâthe sum of all compromises has to be sustainableâ.103
5 Conclusions
Agrifood innovation, although not a predetermined subject of EU law, finds wide coverage in the EUâs legal framework. Indeed, it may be potentially targeted by several EU policies that could address innovation in the agrifood system in terms of both the activity of innovation and its outcome. This chapter focused on innovation in the first sense, exploring the legal framework of the EUâs action in fostering innovation through its budgetary funds. The funding programmes analysed are Horizon Europe and CAP funds, whose contribution to agrifood innovation follows different and inverse dynamics. The first is intended to be a stimulus for innovation in various selected areas, among which the agrifood system is included. The second considers innovation as a factor in pursuing EU policy goals in a principal sector, namely the agrifood system. Still, both represent useful instruments for the EU to support and promote agrifood innovation in the context of its research and common agricultural policies. Within their contents, the two programmes dedicate wide coverage to agrifood innovation issues, financing different kinds of projects and interventions at the European, national, and local levels involving all the relevant stakeholders, and operating in synergy. In doing so, the funding programmes aim to contribute to the wider EU strategy on the sustainability of the agrifood system by directing innovation towards such a goal. This gives shape to agrifood innovation, as fostered through funding, determining its purpose and limits too.
Bibliography
Bianchi D, âCross Compliance: The New Frontier in Granting Subsidies to the Agricultural Sector in the European Unionâ (2007) 19 Georgetown Environmental Law Review 817.
Bizzo G, Fabbri K, Gajdzinska M, Haentjens W, Lueth D, Lutzeyer HJ, Luvarà G, Meloni G, Molina Villanueva J, Sain Lopez N, Schoumacher C, Zampoukas N, âFood 2030âPathways for action 2.0â (Publications Office of the European Union 2023).
Borghi P, âThe âMythâ of Precaution in EU Lawâ, in AIDA-IFLA (eds), Innovation in Agri-Food Law between Technology and Comparison (Wolters Kluwer 2019).
Canfora I, ââProducts of Innovationâ in Agri-Food Markets. Legal Rules for the Access of Innovating Products and Paradigms in the Agri-Food Marketâ in AIDA-IFLA (eds), Innovation in Agri-Food Law between Technology and Comparison (Wolter Kluwer 2019).
Canfora I, Leccese VS, âSocial Sustainability as the Milestone for a Sustainable Food System: The Essential Role of People Working in Agricultureâ (2024) 15 European Journal of Risk Regulation 253.
Crowe R, âThe European Budgetary Galaxyâ (2017) 13 European Constitutional Law Review 428.
Dermine P, âThe Planning Method: An Inquiry into the Constitutional Ramifications of a New EU Governance Techniqueâ (2024) 61 Common Market Law Review 959.
De Smedt K, Vos E, âThe Application of the Precautionary Principle in the EUâ in Mieg HA (ed), The Responsibility of Science (Springer 2022).
de Witte B, âIntegration Through Funding. The Unionâs Finances as Policy Instrumentâ in Weber R (ed), The Financial Constitution of European Integration: Follow the Money? (Hart Publishing 2023).
Fabbri K and Ndongosi I (eds), âFood 2030 Pathways for Action Research and Innovation Policy as a Driver for Sustainable, Healthy and Inclusive Food Systemsâ (Publications Office of the European Union 2020).
Garnett K, Van Calster G and Reins L, âTowards an Innovation Principle: An Industry Trump or Shortening the Odds-on Environmental Protectionâ (2018) 10 Law Innovation and Technology 1.
Langlais A, âLe Droit de lâEnvironnement, Caution de la Dimension Agroécologique de la PAC 2023?â (2022) Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 631.
Langlais A, âThe New Common Agricultural Policy: Reflecting an Agroâecological Transition. The Legal Perspectiveâ (2023) 104 Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 51.
McGoldrick D, âSustainable Development and Human Rights: An Integrated Conceptionâ (1996) 45 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 796.
Pantazatou K, âEuropean Union Fundsâ in Hofmann HCH, Rowe GC and Türk AH, (eds), Specialized Administrative Law of the European Union (OUP 2018).
Renda A, Simonelli F, âStudy supporting the interim evaluation of the innovation principle. Final reportâ (Publications Office of the European Union 2019).
Salvi L, âAgri-Food Law and Innovation through the Lenses of Better Regulationâ in AIDA-IFLA (ed), Innovation in Agri-Food Law between Technology and Comparison (Wolter Kluwer 2019).
Schebesta H, Purnhagen K, EU Food Law (OUP 2024).
Stoll PT, âOf Fear and Prudence: Precaution Through Better Regulation and Innovationâ in Squintani L, Lavrysen L, Darpö J, Stoll PT (eds), Managing Facts and Feelings in Environmental Governance (Edward Elgar 2019).
Szajkowska A, âImpact of the Definition of the Precautionary Principle in EU Food Lawâ (2010) 47 CMLR 173.
Van der Meulen B, Bart Wernaart B, EU Food Law Handbook (Brill | Wageningen Academic 2020).
Voigt C, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2009).
Commission, A Vision for Agriculture and Food. Shaping Together an Attractive Farming and Agri-food Sector for Future Generations COM(2025) 75 final.
Regulation (EU) 2021/819 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology [2021] OJ L189/61, art 2, para 1. This definition has not been subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice. A similar definition is in art 2, para 22, of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement [2014] OJ L94/65. At the international level, see OECD and Eurostat, Oslo Manual 2018. Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4nd edn, OECD Publishing 2018), 20. Even if not explicitly mentioned or defined, the concept of innovation may find relevance in various areas of the EU legal framework, such as biotechnological inventionsâ patentability (Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions [1998] OJ L213/13). However, this does not imply that rules or legal categories elaborated in a specific context can be automatically transposed to others; cf Case T-561/14 One of Us and Others v Commission [2018] EU:T:2018:210, paras 173â174.
As confirmed in Commission, Guidance on Innovation Procurement [2021] OJ C267/01, 6. The same approach is adopted in OECD and Eurostat (n 2), 20.
This seems consistent with TEU art 3 which refers to the promotion of research and technological advances and the EUâs sustainable development as being based on âa highly competitive social market economy, aiming at ⦠social progressâ, as EU objectives related to the establishment of the internal market.
Commission, Annual Single Market Report 2021 SWD(2021) 351 final, 82. The EU notion does not diverge from that shared at the international level; see High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems (Roma 2014), 12. Cf Commission, Co-creation of a transition pathway for a more resilient, sustainable and digital agrifood ecosystem SWD(2023) 263 final, 2.
For a thorough analysis, see Hanna Schebesta and Kai Purnhagen, EU Food Law (OUP 2024), 34â35. A definition of âfoodâ is provided in art 2 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (General Food Law Regulation) laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [2002] OJ L31/1.
Eg the General Food Law Regulation is grounded in four legal bases, concerning four different policies.
See Bernd Van der Meulen and Bart Wernaart (eds), EU Food Law Handbook (BRILL | Wageningen Academic Publishers 2020), 161.
TFEU, arts 179â190.
For an overview of the EU lawâs role in this domain see Laura Salvi, âAgri-Food Law and Innovation through the Lenses of Better Regulationâ and Irene Canfora, ââProducts of Innovationâ in Agri-Food Markets. Legal Rules for the Access of Innovating Products and Paradigms in the Agri-Food Marketâ in AIDA-IFLA (ed), Innovation in Agri-Food Law between Technology and Comparison (Wolters Kluwer 2019). For an example of innovative production methods, see the case of vertical farming in the chapter by Simone Pitto in this volume.
See the chapters by Maria Laura Grilli and Giacomo Degli Antoni, Marco Faillo and Giulia Formici in this volume.
See the chapter by Maria Chiara Errigo in this volume.
Cf Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union [2020] OJ L424/1.
Richard Crowe, âThe European Budgetary Galaxyâ (2017) 13 European Constitutional Law Review 428.
For the period 2021â2026, the budgetâs resources are accompanied by the extra-MMF resources of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. See Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility [2021] OJ L57/17.
TFEU, art 310, para 3.
Cf Bruno de Witte, âIntegration Through Funding. The Unionâs Finances as Policy Instrumentâ in Ruth Weber (ed), The Financial Constitution of European Integration. Follow the Money? (Hart Publishing 2023), 222â224.
For an infographic overview see OECD, âPolicies for the Future of Farming and Food in the European Unionâ (OECD Publishing 2023), 229.
Other funds may have a role in fostering innovation in sectors related to the agrifood system. See, for instance, Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund [2021] OJ L247/1.
Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europeâthe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination [2021] OJ L170/1.
Respectively, under the TFEU, arts 182, para 1, art 183 and art 188 and under the TFEU, art 173, para 3.
Regulation (EU) 2021/695 (n 20), art 3, para 1.
See n 4.
TFEU, art 180.
TEU, art 4, para 3.
TFEU, art 181.
TFEU, art 173, para 1.
TFEU, art 173, para 4.
Cf TFEU, art 3, para 6.
Cf de Witte (n 17), 227. What is said does not imply that the adoption of legislative or other binding acts is prevented. As mentioned, their use is required by the Treaties to establish the funding programmes.
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) [2024] OJ L239/1, art 62, para 1, lett a).
Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [2021] OJ L435/1.
TFEU, art 39, para 1, combined with TFEU, art 11. See Commission, Impact Assessment Accompanying the Documents COM(2018) 392 final, COM(2018) 393 final, COM(2018) 394 final, SEC(2018) 305 final SWD/2018/301 final, 19; cf de Witte (n 17), 226.
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (TCEE), art 41.
TFEU, art 4, para 2, lett d).
De Witte (n 17) 235.
Regulation 2021/2115, art 5.
Regulation 2021/2115, art 6, para 2.
De Witte (n 17) 226.
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509, (n 31) art 63.
Regulation 2021/2115, art 1, para 1, lett c. This practice substantively corresponds to the partnership principle operating in the field of the EU cohesion policy funds. See Katerina Pantazatou, âEuropean Union Fundsâ in Herwig CH Hofmann, Gerard C Rowe, and Alexander H Türk, Specialized Administrative Law of the European Union (OUP 2018) 537.
Regulation 2021/2115, art 118.
See SWD/2018/301 final, 21. The described delivery model can beâat least partiallyâseen through the lens of the new planning method described in Paul Dermine, âThe Planning Method: An Inquiry into the Constitutional Ramifications of a New EU Governance Techniqueâ (2024) 61 Common Market Law Review 959.
TFEU, art 182, para 1.
See (n 20).
TFEU, art 182, para 1.
TFEU, art 182, para 3. Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 of 10 May 2021 establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon Europe [2021] OJ L167/1.
See Section 2.
KICâs are large-scale, institutionalised, European partnerships (as referred to in the HE Regulation; see below in this section) of higher education institutions, research organisations, companies, and other stakeholders in the innovation process in the form of a strategic network, based on joint mid- to long-term innovation planning to meet EIT challenges and contribute to attaining the objectives established under Horizon Europe; Regulation (EU) 2021/819 (n 2) art 2, para 2.
Cf European Research Council Executive Agency, âMapping ERC frontier research sustainable food production and consumptionâ (Publications Office 2023) <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/59edf0fa-0e5c-11ee-b12e-01aa75ed71a1> accessed 27 June 2025.
HE Regulation, Annex I.
ibid.
HE Regulation, arts 8 and 10 and Annex IV.
Council Decision 2021/764 (n 47), Annex I.
Commission Implementing Decision 2024/2371, Annex IX, 22.
HE Regulation, rec. 7 and Annex I.
The basic act is Regulation (EU) 2021/2115.
Regulation 2021/2115, art 6, para 2.
Regulation 2021/2115, art 127. See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the European Innovation Partnership âAgricultural Productivity and Sustainabilityâ COM(2012) 079 final.
EU SCAR AKIS, Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe (European Commission 2nd edn, 2019) 17. See Reg 2021/2115, art 127, para 2, letts a) and d).
Regulation 2021/2115, art 126.
Regulation 2021/2115, art 3, para 9. See Commission, Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transitionâA reflection paper (Publications Office of the European Union 2012) <https://scar-europe.org/images/AKIS/Documents/AKIS_reflection_paper.pdf> 8 accessed 26 June 2025.
Further on the topic, see OECD (n 18) 218â223.
See Reg 2021/2115, arts 71â73, 75, 76, and 78.
ibid, art 70.
ibid, art 77, para 1 and 2.
ibid, art 127, para 3.
ibid, art 107, para 1, lett g).
ibid, art 114.
ibid, art 7, para 1 and Annex I.
ibid, rec 6. Cf Reg 2021/2115, art 79, para 4.
See OECD (n 18) 255.
Council Regulation (EEC) 1728/74 of 27 June 1974 on the coordination of agricultural research [1974] OJ L182/1.
Commission, The European Green Deal COM(2019) 640 final, 18.
Commission, A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system COM(2020) 381 final, 15â16. See also Commission, The Energy Transition of the EU Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector COM(2023) 100 final, 14â17.
Karen Fabbri and Irene Ndongosi (eds), Food 2030 Pathways for Action Research and Innovation Policy as a Driver for Sustainable, Healthy and Inclusive Food Systems (Publications Office of the European Union 2020) Giulia Bizzo and others, Food 2030âPathways for Action 2.0 (Publications Office of the European Union 2023); SWD(2023) 263 final (n 5).
UN General Assembly, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [2015] A/RES/70/1.
HE Regulation, art 3, para 1.
See Alexandra Langlais, âThe New Common Agricultural Policy: Reflecting an Agroâ ecological Transition. The Legal Perspectiveâ (2023) 104 Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 51.
Among others, Paolo Borghi, âThe âMythâ of Precaution in EU Lawâ, in AIDA-IFLA (ed), Innovation in Agri-Food Law between Technology and Comparison (Wolters Kluwer 2019); Peter-Tobias Stoll, âOf Fear and Prudence: Precaution Through Better Regulation and Innovationâ in Lorenzo Squintani and others (eds), Managing Facts and Feelings in Environmental Governance (Edward Elgar 2019).
Among others, Kristel de Smedt and Ellen Vos, âThe Application of the Precautionary Principle in the EUâ in Harald A Mieg (ed), The Responsibility of Science (Springer 2022).
Commission, Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle COM(2000) 1 final, 8.
TFEU, art 191, para 2.
TFEU, arts 7, 9, and 11 and Charter of Fundamental Rights, art 37. Cf Case T-74/00 Artegodan and Others v Commission (2002) ECR II-04945 para 184. See Anna Szajkowska, âThe Impact of the Definition of the Precautionary Principle in EU Food Lawâ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 173.
Council Decision 2021/764 (n 47), art 2, para 2, lett d).
Contrasts between the promotion of innovation through the funds and the other principles envisaged by TFEU, art 191, para 2, ie prevention, rectifying pollution at source, and âpolluters payâ are less likely to arise. On the contrary, funded projects may provide innovative solutions to facilitate compliance with those principles (especially prevention and rectifying pollution at source) in the context of the activities in the agrifood sector.
Commission, A renewed European Agenda for Research and Innovation COM(2018) 306 final, 10. On the topic, Kathleen Garnett, Geert Van Calster and Leonie Reins, âTowards an Innovation Principle: An Industry Trump or Shortening the Odds on Environmental Protectionâ (2018) 10 Law Innovation and Technology 1; Ellen Vos and Kristel de Smedt, âWP1 Report: Taking stock as a basis for the effect of the precautionary principle since 2000â <https://recipes-project.eu/sites/default/files/2021-01/Report_Taking%20stock%20as%20a%20basis%20for%20the%20effect%20of%20the%20precautionary%20principle%20since%202000_Final.pdf>, 25â39 accessed 26 June 2025.
Garnett, Van Calster and Reins (n 87) 11. For a different view, European Political Strategy Centre, âTowards an innovation principle endorsed by better regulationâ <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/53b6d635-ac93-11e6-aab7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en#>, 2â3 accessed 26 June 2025.
Andrea Renda and Felice Simonelli, âStudy supporting the interim evaluation of the innovation principle. Final reportâ (Publications Office of the European Union 2019) <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail>.
Commission, âBetter regulationâ toolbox (July 2023 edition) <https://commission.europa.eu>, 172.
Reference to the innovation principle can also be found in HE Regulation, rec 6.
See the International Law Association New Delhi Declaration, ILA Resolution 3/2002, annexed to UN Doc. A/57/329, para 7. Cf Christina Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2009), 35â55; Dominic McGoldrick, âSustainable Development and Human Rights: An Integrated Conceptionâ (1996) 45 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 796.
COM(2025) 75 final (n 1), 24.
See Reg 2021/2115, arts 12â14 and Annexes III and IV. Cf Daniel Bianchi, âCross Compliance: The New Frontier in Granting Subsidies to the Agricultural Sector in the European Unionâ (2007) 19 Georgetown Environmental Law Review 817; Irene Canfora and Vito S Leccese, âSocial Sustainability as the Milestone for a Sustainable Food System: The Essential Role of People Working in Agricultureâ (2024) 15 European Journal of Risk Regulation 253.
HE Regulation, art 18. Cf Case T-561/14 (n 2). Such a restraint is consistent with the fundamental rights of science freedom under art 13 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which can be legitimately restricted in order to protect human dignity under art 1 of the same instrument.
Article 19 para 1, first alinea, of the HE Regulation.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, ETS No. 005.
HE Regulation, art 19, para 1, second alinea.
Regulation 2021/20115, art 9.
HE Regulation, art 19, para 3. Cf Case T-158/19 Breyer v REA [2021] EU:T:2021:902, para 198.
Regulation 2021/2011, art 118, para 2. Cf Case T-39/23 Acqua & Sole v Commission [2024] EU:T:2024:710 para 56.
For a critical view, see Alexandra Langlais, âLe Droit de lâEnvironnement, Caution de la Dimension Agroécologique de la PAC 2023â ?â [2022] Revue de lâUnion Européenne 631.
Voigt (n 92), 54.