Building and Managing Relationships with Funders

[Audio] Welcome everyone, and thank you for joining this session. Today we are going to talk about building and managing relationships with funders, specifically in the context of agricultural research. Now, agriculture is a very specific field. It is not only about research, it is about real systems, real farms, real risks, and real people. Unlike some other disciplines, where outcomes can be controlled in laboratory conditions, agricultural research is exposed to uncertainty every day. Weather conditions, soil variability, market pressures, all of these influence outcomes. Because of that, funders in this field are not only evaluating ideas, they are evaluating reliability. They are asking themselves: Can this team deliver results even when conditions are not ideal? Let me give you a simple example. Imagine a project focused on drought-resistant crops. On paper, everything looks strong, methodology, data, projections. But then, during implementation, weather patterns shift in unexpected ways. At that moment, the quality of the relationship becomes more important than the quality of the proposal. Because funders need to trust that the team will adapt, communicate, and manage the situation professionally. So today, we will not focus on how to write proposals. We will focus on something more strategic, how to build relationships that lead to long-term funding, repeated collaboration, and institutional credibility. And I would encourage you to listen to this not only as project participants, but as long-term partners in a funding ecosystem..

[Audio] To understand why this topic is critical, we need to look at the broader funding landscape. First, competition is increasing. There are more universities, more research institutes, and more interdisciplinary teams entering the funding space. What used to be a relatively specialized field is now highly competitive. Second, expectations are changing. Funders are no longer satisfied with outputs like reports or publications alone. They are looking for impact, measurable, visible, and applicable. In agriculture, this means: Are farmers actually using the results? Are practices changing? Is sustainability improving? And third, and this is perhaps the most important shift, funding is becoming relationship-based. Funders prefer to work with partners they already know. Why? Because it reduces risk. If you have already demonstrated that you can deliver, communicate, and manage complexity, you become a safer investment. So what does this mean for you? It means that success is no longer only about technical excellence. It is about strategic positioning. It is about being recognized, remembered, and trusted..

[Audio] This brings us to the core idea of this session. Funding follows relationships, not just applications. Now, of course, a strong proposal is necessary. But it is not always sufficient. Funders are human decision-makers. They operate within systems, but they also rely on experience, trust, and familiarity. Let's think about a real situation. A funding body receives two proposals of equal quality. Both meet the criteria. Both have strong methodologies. But one comes from a team they have worked with before, a team that delivered on time, communicated clearly, and handled challenges professionally. Which one has an advantage? The answer is obvious. This does not mean the system is unfair, it means it is realistic. Trust reduces uncertainty. And in complex fields like agriculture, reducing uncertainty is extremely valuable. So instead of focusing only on the question: 'How do we write a better proposal?' We should also be asking: 'How do we become a partner that funders trust over time?'".

[Audio] To build effective relationships with funders, we first need to understand that not all funders are the same. In agriculture, we typically work with three main categories, and each one operates with a different logic. Let's start with public funding bodies, such as EU programs or national ministries. These funders are strongly driven by policy. Their priorities are defined at a strategic level, for example, sustainability, climate adaptation, biodiversity, or rural development. This means that when you communicate with them, you are not only presenting your project, you are positioning your work within a broader policy framework. Now, the second group, international organizations. These institutions often focus on development challenges. Their perspective is slightly different. They are asking questions like: How does this project improve livelihoods? How does it support smallholder farmers? What is the social impact? So here, the narrative shifts from technology and research to people and communities. And finally, we have industry and innovation funding. This is where the focus becomes much more practical. These funders are interested in application, speed, and scalability. They want to know: Can this solution be implemented next season? Can it be commercialized? So the key takeaway here is this: You are not only managing one relationship, you are managing different types of relationships, each with its own expectations. And the ability to adapt your communication to these different logics is what makes you effective.".

[Audio] Now let's go one level deeper and look at how funders actually think. Because if we understand their mindset, we can communicate much more effectively. Funders are not primarily evaluating how interesting your research is. They are evaluating how relevant and reliable it is. There are four key questions they usually ask, even if not explicitly. First: does this solve a real problem? In agriculture, problems are very concrete, water scarcity, soil degradation, productivity, resilience. If your project is not clearly connected to one of these, it immediately becomes less compelling. Second: can this solution scale? It is one thing to demonstrate success in a controlled environment or a single pilot farm. It is another thing to show that this can be applied across regions, climates, or farming systems. Third: can this team deliver? This is where your track record matters. Have you worked on similar projects before? Have you managed complexity? Have you delivered results? And fourth: is the impact clear and measurable? Funders want to understand not only what you will do, but what will change as a result. So the key skill here is translation. You need to translate your research into impact language. From 'we study soil composition' to 'we improve yield stability and reduce environmental impact.' That shift is essential..

[Audio] One of the biggest barriers to building strong relationships is not lack of quality, it is the way communication is structured. Many institutions operate in what we can call a transactional model. Let's walk through this slowly. When a funding call is announced, there is intense activity. Teams prepare proposals, communicate with funders, ask questions, attend info sessions. Then, during the project, communication continues, because it is required. Reports, updates, meetings. But the moment the project ends, communication stops. Now, from the institution's perspective, this feels normal. The project is finished. But from the funder's perspective, something else happens. You disappear. And when you disappear, the relationship weakens. Let's take a concrete example. A research team completes a successful project on precision agriculture. They deliver everything on time. But after that, no updates, no follow-up, no engagement. Two years later, they apply again. Now, compare this with another team that sends occasional updates, shares continued results, and stays visible. Even if both teams are equally strong, one of them is remembered. So the issue here is not competence, it is continuity. And that is where most opportunities are lost..

[Audio] To avoid this problem, we need a structured way of thinking about relationships. And one useful model is to see funding as a lifecycle, not a single event. Let's go through each phase more carefully. Discovery is where you understand the funder. Not just the call, but their broader strategy. What are they trying to achieve over the next 5–10 years? Contact is about visibility. This is where you start building familiarity, through conferences, networks, or direct communication. Proposal is where alignment happens. You are not just submitting an idea, you are aligning with their priorities. Delivery is execution. This is where you prove reliability. But then comes the most important phase, stewardship. This is where the relationship either grows or disappears. If you stop here, the cycle ends. If you continue, the cycle becomes a loop, and each new project builds on the previous one. That is how long-term partnerships are created..

[Audio] Stewardship is often misunderstood because it is not formally required. There is no obligation to stay in touch after the project ends. But that is exactly why it is so powerful. Because it is voluntary, and it signals commitment. Let's take a realistic example. A project on irrigation optimization is completed. Now, a team practicing stewardship might do something very simple. They send a short update: 'We continued testing with additional farmers, and results show consistent water savings.' Or they share a short story: 'One farm reduced water usage by 20% while maintaining yield.' These are not formal reports. But they create a narrative of continuity. They show that the project has a life beyond funding. And that is exactly what funders want to see, not isolated projects, but ongoing impact..

[Audio] "To implement stewardship effectively, we need structure. Because without structure, communication becomes irregular and eventually disappears. A relationship calendar is a simple but powerful tool. It helps you plan communication throughout the year. Let's make this very concrete. In spring, you might send a short update with early observations from the field. In summer, you organize a field day, where funders can see the project in action. In autumn, you share results and lessons learned. And in winter, you schedule a strategic conversation about next steps. Now, this may sound simple, but it changes everything. Because instead of disappearing between projects, you remain present. And presence builds familiarity. Familiarity builds trust..

[Audio] Now let's focus on something that seems simple, but is actually one of the most decisive factors in building relationships: communication style. Because it is not enough to communicate regularly. The way you communicate determines how you are perceived. Let's break this down into three core principles: clarity, honesty, and impact. First. clarity. Funders are dealing with dozens, sometimes hundreds of projects at the same time. If your communication is too technical, too long, or not well structured, it becomes difficult to follow. And when something is difficult to follow, it is easier to ignore. So clarity means simplifying without losing meaning. For example, instead of saying: 'We conducted a multi-variable analysis of irrigation efficiency under varying climatic conditions,' you can say: 'We tested how different irrigation methods perform under changing weather conditions, and identified the most efficient approach.' Same meaning, but much clearer. Now, second, honesty. This is especially important in agriculture. Let's be realistic, not every field trial works perfectly. Weather changes. Soil conditions vary. Farmers apply methods differently. So the question is not whether problems happen, they always do. The question is how you communicate them. Let me give you a situation. A field trial fails due to unexpected drought conditions. You have two options. Option one: present partial results and avoid discussing the issue. Option two: clearly explain what happened, why it happened, and what you learned. Which one builds more trust? Always the second. Because funders are not expecting perfection, they are expecting professionalism. And professionalism includes transparency. And finally, impact. Every communication you send should answer one question: So what? What changed? Why does it matter? Who benefits? If your communication answers those questions clearly, it becomes valuable. If it doesn't, it becomes just another update. So when we combine these three, clarity, honesty, and impact, we create communication that builds trust over time.".

[Audio] Now let's move into a very important distinction, the difference between reporting and engagement. Because many institutions believe that reporting is enough. But reporting alone does not build relationships. Let's first define reporting. Reporting is structured, formal, and necessary. It includes deliverables, data, milestones, and outcomes. It answers the question: what did you do? But engagement answers a different question: what does this mean? And that difference is critical. Let me give you a concrete example. A report might say: 'Yield increased by 10% compared to baseline conditions.' That is correct. That is useful. But engagement goes further. It explains: Where did the increase happen? Was it consistent across farms? What factors influenced the results? For example: 'The increase was highest in regions with moderate rainfall, while in drier regions results were less stable.' Now suddenly, the information becomes actionable. It becomes meaningful. And this is where you create value for the funder. Because funders are not only interested in results, they are interested in understanding. Understanding allows them to make better decisions, to scale projects, to design future programs. So when you move from reporting to engagement, you move from being a project implementer to being a knowledge partner. And that is a very important shift..

[Audio] In agriculture, one of your biggest advantages is that your work is visible. It happens in the field. It can be seen, experienced, and understood. And this gives you a powerful communication tool, field-based engagement. Let me illustrate this with a simple comparison. Imagine a funder receives a 20-page report full of tables and data. Now imagine they receive a short update that includes: a few photos from the field, a short explanation of what is happening, and a quote from a farmer. Which one creates a stronger impression? The second one. Because it connects data with reality. Let's take a real example. Instead of saying: 'The irrigation system improved efficiency,' you can show: a photo of the system in use, a short explanation, and a statement from a farmer saying: 'We reduced water use and maintained our yield.' This makes the result tangible. It creates a story. And stories are easier to remember than data. This does not replace scientific rigor, but it complements it. And when you combine both, you create communication that is both credible and engaging..

[Audio] Another step further is not just communicating with funders, but actively involving them. This is where relationships become significantly stronger. Let's think about the difference between observation and participation. If a funder reads about your project, they understand it at a distance. If they visit your project, they experience it. That experience creates a much stronger connection. For example, imagine organizing a field day. Farmers are present. Students present results. Researchers explain the methodology. Now imagine the funder is there. They can see the crops. They can talk to farmers. They can ask questions directly. This creates a completely different level of understanding. And more importantly, it creates emotional engagement. Because they are no longer funding an idea, they are seeing real impact. And when people feel connected to something, they are more likely to support it again. So involving funders is not just a nice addition, it is a strategic tool..

[Audio] Let's now pause and bring this back to your own experience. Because everything we discussed only becomes useful when you apply it. I would like you to think about the last three funders you worked with. Take a moment and visualize them, the projects, the communication, the outcomes. Now ask yourself a few simple questions. When was the last time you contacted them outside of a formal requirement? Did you ever send a short update after the project ended? Did you ever share additional results or developments? Or did the communication stop with the final report? Now, this is not about judging, it is about identifying opportunities. Because in most cases, the answer is that communication is limited to the project lifecycle. And that means there is untapped potential. Relationships are not built through one interaction, they are built through consistency over time. And even small actions, a short email, an update, an invitation, can make a difference. So the question is not whether you can build relationships. The question is whether you are intentionally working on them..

[Audio] To conclude this section, let's take a step back and summarize the key ideas. We started with a simple but important shift, from thinking about funding as a transaction to thinking about it as a relationship. We discussed how funders evaluate projects, how communication shapes perception, and how engagement builds trust. But if we reduce everything to three key messages, they would be these. First, funding follows trust. No matter how strong your proposal is, trust plays a role in decision-making. Second, relationships create long-term sustainability. If you rely only on individual projects, funding will always be uncertain. But if you build relationships, each project increases your chances for the next one. And third, continuous engagement creates future opportunities. Not because you are asking for funding, but because you are staying present, relevant, and valuable. In agriculture, the challenges we address are long-term. And that means our approach to funding must also be long-term. Projects will always end. But relationships, if managed well, continue. And those relationships are what will define your long-term success..

[Audio] In the next part, I will walk you through some of the best practices of fundrasing in Digital Agriculture and show you how to move from traditional project funding to a more strategic, long-term fundrasing approach..

[Audio] Digital Agriculture (DA) represents a transformative approach to agricultural production and management, integrating data-driven technologies such as artificial intelligence, remote sensing, and precision farming tools. Digital Agriculture represents a major shift in how we produce and manage food. It combines technologies such as artificial intelligence, remote sensing, and precision farming to make agriculture more efficient, data-driven, and sustainable. These innovations aim to increase productivity, optimise resource use, and enhance sustainability. However, despite its strategic importance, Digital Agriculture faces persistent challenges in securing sustainable funding. Despite this strong potential, one of the key bottlenecks remains funding, especially long-term, sustainable funding. Most Digital Agriculture initiatives are still heavily dependent on short-term public funding. Many projects remain dependent on short-term public funding and struggle to transition toward long-term investment and scaling. This creates a gap between innovation and real-world implementation. Many solutions never scale beyond pilot level. At the same time, the funding landscape itself is changing. Funders are becoming more selective, more impact-driven, and more focused on measurable outcomes. This presentation examines how fundraising strategies can be improved through: adoption of best practices, improved positioning of projects, and effective use of networks and alumni. This means that today, it is no longer enough to have a good project, you need to position it strategically..

[Audio] The funding landscape for Digital Agriculture is undergoing significant transformation. On one hand, there is growing recognition of the importance of digital technologies in agriculture, particularly for improving productivity, sustainability, and resilience. But on the other hand, access to funding is becoming more competitive and increasingly selective. Several key trends are shaping this environment. First, public funding is becoming more policy-driven. Today, funding is strongly aligned with priorities such as climate neutrality, biodiversity protection, and food system resilience, particularly under programmes supported by the European Commission. Second, private investment is growing, but remains cautious. Investors are often concerned about high risks, long return cycles, and uncertainty around adoption, especially in agriculture. Third, we are seeing the rise of blended finance models, which combine public and private funding sources. These models are increasingly important because they help share risk and enable projects to move from research to market. As a result, it is no longer enough for projects to demonstrate scientific excellence alone. They must also clearly show relevance, measurable impact, and the ability to scale. According to the World Bank, digital technologies are essential for improving agricultural productivity and resilience, but scaling these solutions requires significant investment, coordination, and enabling ecosystems. At the same time, Digital Agriculture remains a high-potential, but complex sector. It requires substantial upfront investment in technologies such as sensors, platforms, and AI models. However, financial returns are often delayed. In addition, farmers tend to be risk-averse, which slows down adoption. This creates a persistent gap between innovation and real market uptake. And importantly, the investment landscape itself is becoming more volatile. According to AgFunder, global AgriFoodTech investment dropped significantly, from around $51 billion in 2021 to approximately $16 billion in the 2023–2025 period. This brings us to important point: Funding is still available, but it is harder to secure, more competitive, and requires a much stronger strategic approach..

[Audio] These are some of the key reasons why many Digital Agriculture projects struggle to secure funding. Very often, the issue is not the quality of the research, many of these projects are scientifically strong and technically sound. The challenge lies in how they are positioned. For example, projects often lack a clearly defined and well-communicated value proposition. It is not always clear what problem they are solving, who benefits, and what the measurable impact will be. In addition, engagement with funders is often limited to formal proposal submissions. There is little continuous interaction, relationship-building, or strategic communication. Another common issue is fragmented stakeholder involvement. Projects may include multiple partners, but they do not always function as a coherent ecosystem, which weakens both credibility and implementation potential. These challenges are especially common in academically driven projects, where the scientific quality is high, but alignment with funder expectations, particularly in terms of impact, scalability, and stakeholder engagement, is not sufficiently addressed. This is why fundraising in Digital Agriculture should not be seen as a one-time, transactional activity. Instead, it should be understood as a strategic and relational process. It requires: alignment with funder priorities and broader strategic agendas, continuous engagement and communication with stakeholders and funders, and a clear ability to demonstrate long-term value and impact. Successful fundraising depends not only on what you do, but on how effectively you position and communicate it. And this leads to a fundamental mindset shift: We need to move from thinking :"We develop a technology" to thinking: "We solve a real-world problem." This shift may seem simple, but it is critical. Because funders are not investing in technologies, they are investing in solutions, outcomes, and impact. Projects that clearly articulate the problem they address, the value they create, and the impact they deliver are far more likely to secure funding and move beyond the project phase..

[Audio] A key best practice is aligning project objectives with the strategic priorities of funders. For example: EU funding prioritises sustainability, climate action, and digital transformation. International organisations focus on food security and resilience. Projects that explicitly demonstrate how they contribute to these priorities are significantly more competitive. Alignment is not about changing your project, it is about framing it in a way that reflects funder priorities. Funders increasingly require clear and measurable evidence of impact. This includes: quantitative indicators (e.g. yield increase, cost reduction), environmental outcomes (e.g. reduced emissions or water use), and socio-economic benefits (e.g. improved livelihoods). Projects that provide concrete and verifiable data are more credible and more likely to secure funding. The shift toward evidence-based funding means that qualitative claims are no longer sufficient, impact must be demonstrated with data. Blended funding combines different sources of finance, including: public funding for research and early-stage development, private investment for scaling and commercialization, and impact finance for sustainability-oriented initiatives. This approach reduces financial risk and increases the likelihood of long-term sustainability. Blended finance is particularly important in Digital Agriculture, where projects often move from research to market over a long period..

[Audio] Funders typically assess projects based on several key criteria, and successful projects are those that anticipate these questions and provide clear, convincing answers. First, scalability: Can the solution go beyond the pilot phase? Can it be applied across regions, crops, or systems? Second, market relevance: Is there a real need for this solution? Is there demand from farmers, industry, or other stakeholders? Third, feasibility: Can the solution actually be implemented in real-world conditions, outside of controlled environments? And finally, risk: Have potential uncertainties been clearly identified, and are there strategies in place to manage them? Projects that address these dimensions in a structured and transparent way are significantly more attractive to both public and private funders. At the same time, a well-defined value proposition is essential for attracting funding. In Digital Agriculture, this typically includes: increased productivity and efficiency reduced use of inputs such as water, fertilizers, and energy improved environmental sustainability, including climate resilience and enhanced decision-making through data and analytics. However, it is not enough to simply list these benefits. The value proposition must be: specific measurable and clearly communicated. To give a concrete example, in the case of TALLHEDA, the value lies in: improving skills in Digital Agriculture, strengthening research ecosystems, and enhancing collaboration between academia and industry. What is particularly important here is that the main value is not immediate commercial output, but long-term systemic change. And this is a crucial point for funders. Not all value is short-term or market-based. Some projects create impact by strengthening capacities, building networks, and enabling future innovation. Ultimately, the value proposition is where science meets impact. It is the point where research is translated into tangible benefits, for users, for society, and for the broader system. Projects that can clearly make this connection are far more likely to stand out in an increasingly competitive funding landscape..

[Audio] In the next few slides, we will show some good examples of Case Studies and how different fundraising models are used in Digital Agriculture. These examples show that there is no single fundraising model in Digital Agriculture. Different strategies exist depending on whether the focus is on innovation, impact, ecosystems, or market scaling..

[Audio] A strong example of successful positioning in Digital Agriculture is John Deere. Traditionally, John Deere was known as a manufacturer of agricultural machinery. However, over the past decade, the company has undergone a significant transformation, shifting from a product-based business model to a digital platform provider. Today, John Deere offers a range of digital services, including precision farming technologies, connected equipment, and advanced data analytics platforms. These tools allow farmers to collect and analyse real-time data on soil conditions, crop performance, and input use. This transformation has enabled several key advantages. First, it created new revenue streams beyond equipment sales, particularly through subscription-based digital services. Second, it significantly increased customer value, as farmers are no longer just buying machinery, but gaining insights that improve decision-making. And third, it allowed for scalability, since digital solutions can be applied across different regions, crops, and farming systems. What is particularly important from a fundraising perspective is that John Deere's value proposition no longer lies only in physical products, but in data-driven services that directly improve productivity, efficiency, and sustainability. The key lesson here is that funders and investors are not primarily interested in the technology itself, but in the outcomes it enables, such as increased yields, reduced costs, and better resource management..

[Audio] Another strong example of effective positioning in Digital Agriculture is The Climate Corporation, which operates as part of Bayer. The Climate Corporation focuses on transforming agricultural decision-making through data. It integrates multiple data sources, such as weather patterns, soil conditions, and field-level performance, to help farmers identify yield-limiting factors and optimize their operations. Rather than concentrating on individual inputs like seeds or fertilizers, the company developed a digital platform called FieldView. This platform provides farmers with real-time, data-driven insights that support more precise and informed decision-making throughout the growing season. This shift, from selling products to delivering decision-support services, is particularly important from a fundraising and investment perspective. FieldView offers clear and measurable benefits, such as: improved yields, optimized use of inputs like water, fertilizers, and pesticides, reduced operational uncertainty. These outcomes are highly attractive to investors because they are tangible, quantifiable, and directly linked to economic and environmental performance. In addition, the platform is highly scalable. It can be applied across different regions, crops, and farming systems, which significantly increases its investment potential. The key takeaway is that solutions like this are considered "investment-ready" because they combine three critical elements: clear value, scalability, and a sustainable business model. Ultimately, this case demonstrates that funders are far more likely to support solutions that deliver measurable outcomes and can scale beyond pilot projects..

[Audio] Another important example is EIT Food, which represents a fundamentally different approach to fundraising in Digital Agriculture. Unlike traditional projects that focus on a single solution or output, EIT Food operates as a large-scale innovation ecosystem. It brings together universities, research institutions, industry partners, startups, and investors into one integrated network. This model enables continuous collaboration, rather than one-off project interactions. It supports knowledge exchange, joint innovation, and importantly, co-investment opportunities across different actors in the value chain. From a fundraising perspective, this approach is particularly powerful. First, it reduces risk. Projects are not developed in isolation, but within a network of complementary partners. Second, it increases credibility, because solutions are backed by a strong consortium of academic and industry actors. And third, it creates a pipeline of innovation, meaning that instead of a single project outcome, there is a continuous flow of ideas, solutions, and investment opportunities. This is highly aligned with current European funding priorities, especially under programmes like Horizon Europe, which increasingly favour multi-actor approaches, ecosystem building, and long-term impact rather than isolated results. Strong networks and institutional collaboration are not just supportive elements, they are becoming central components of successful fundraising strategies. In other words, funders are no longer just investing in projects, they are investing in ecosystems..

[Audio] Networks play a critical role in successful fundraising, especially in Digital Agriculture. They are not just supportive, they are often the main gateway to funding opportunities. Strong networks help in three key ways: First, they provide access to funding opportunities, many of which are not publicly advertised. Second, they enable partnerships and collaboration, which are increasingly required by funders. And third, they support knowledge exchange, helping projects stay relevant and aligned with market and policy needs. In practice, many funding opportunities actually emerge through professional connections rather than open calls. This makes visibility and credibility within your network extremely important. So where should you look? Start with your existing ecosystem: current and former project partners, industry actors and startups, researchers and academic collaborators, and policy actors. These are not just stakeholders, they are potential entry points to funding. Now, one of the most underestimated assets in this context is your alumni network. Alumni should not be seen as "past participants," but as part of a long-term funding ecosystem. They can play multiple roles: as connectors, introducing you to investors or funding bodies, as experts, providing mentorship and strategic advice and sometimes even as donors or partners in new initiatives. Maintaining long-term relationships with alumni can significantly strengthen your fundraising capacity over time. In many cases, alumni become ambassadors for your work, promoting your projects, validating your credibility, and opening doors to new opportunities. Your strongest funding asset is often your existing network. If you deliver high-quality work and maintain relationships, people who have already collaborated with you are far more likely to support you again, either directly, or by connecting you to the right opportunities..

[Audio] Successful Digital Agriculture initiatives are rarely developed in isolation. Instead, they are typically embedded in multi-actor ecosystems that bring together key stakeholders, such as research institutions, industry partners, farmers, and policymakers. Each of these actors plays a distinct but complementary role. Researchers generate knowledge and innovation. Industry partners support development, scaling, and commercialization. Farmers ensure real-world relevance and adoption. And policymakers create the enabling regulatory and funding environment. When these actors work together, the result is a much more robust and effective innovation process. Such ecosystems enhance innovation by combining different types of expertise and perspectives. They reduce risk, because solutions are tested, validated, and refined across multiple stakeholders. And they significantly increase the likelihood of successful implementation, since end-users—such as farmers—are involved from the beginning. From a fundraising perspective, this is particularly important. Funders are increasingly moving away from supporting isolated, single-partner projects. Instead, they prioritise collaborative, ecosystem-based approaches that demonstrate: strong partnerships, real-world applicability and long-term impact. It is no longer just about having a strong project, it is about being part of a strong ecosystem. Projects that are embedded in well-connected, multi-actor environments are far more attractive to funders because they are seen as more credible, scalable, and likely to succeed..

[Audio] Fundraising in Digital Agriculture requires a strategic approach that combines: alignment with funder priorities, clear and measurable impact, effective positioning of projects, and strong networks and partnerships. By adopting these practices, projects can improve their competitiveness and secure more sustainable funding. Ultimately, successful fundraising is about connecting innovation with impact, and projects with the right partners..

[Audio] This part of the funding session focuses on three closely connected topics: fundraising through partnerships and sponsorships, building strategic industry partnerships for sustainable funding, and developing co-branded sponsorship opportunities in Digital Agriculture research. These topics matter because Digital Agriculture rarely advances through a single source of support. Very often, a promising initiative depends on a combination of grant funding, institutional support, strategic partners, sponsors, in-kind contributors, technology providers, pilot hosts, and broader stakeholder networks. In other words, funding in Digital Agriculture is often tied not only to money, but also to access, infrastructure, credibility, testing conditions, user communities, and visibility. That is particularly true in Digital Agriculture because this field sits between research and application. A strong concept may still need access to a farm, a demonstration environment, a software provider, a data partner, a sensor company, an agribusiness network, a local authority, or a stakeholder group that can help validate and communicate the work. Many of the resources that move an idea forward are therefore relational and ecosystem-based, not only financial. This is why partnerships and sponsorships should not be treated as secondary or occasional options. They can become structured ways of mobilising resources, building visibility, creating continuity, and supporting long-term collaboration around research and innovation. That matters even more in multi-actor innovation environments, where co-creation between research organisations, industry, and other actors often becomes the mechanism through which new solutions actually move toward use and impact. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development describes exactly this kind of setting, where innovation is shaped jointly by universities, research institutes, companies, and wider stakeholders rather than moving in a simple one-way direction. The practical goal here is therefore simple. It is not only to explain what partnerships and sponsorships are, but to show how they can be approached strategically. The key idea running through all three parts is that support is easier to attract when the relationship is clear, the value proposition is credible, and the collaboration is structured from the beginning. That idea may sound straightforward, but in practice it changes the quality of every conversation. It changes how an initiative is presented, how potential supporters are selected, how expectations are set, and how collaboration is sustained over time. With that broader perspective in mind, the first step is to clarify what different forms of external support actually mean. A useful starting point is to separate several terms that are often used interchangeably, even though they do not mean the same thing..

[Audio] Here, you can see different terms of supporting models. A donor usually gives support because they believe in a mission, an educational purpose, a social objective, or the broader value of research and innovation. A sponsor usually supports an initiative in return for clearly defined benefits such as visibility, recognition, access to an audience, or association with a relevant platform. A strategic partner is different again. A strategic partner does not simply support a single activity. A strategic partner shares an interest in solving a problem, developing a capability, creating an ecosystem, or building a relationship that can continue to create value over time. There is also a category that is extremely important in Digital Agriculture and often underestimated: in-kind support. In-kind support can include equipment, software licences, data access, field access, technical support, communication support, mentoring, specialist expertise, or access to stakeholders. In the early stages of a pilot, a demonstration, or a research-to-practice activity, that kind of support can be just as valuable as direct funding. In some cases, it is actually more valuable than direct funding, because access to the right environment, device, user group, or technical capability can make the difference between an idea that remains theoretical and an idea that becomes testable. And finally, there are investors, who usually enter the conversation later, when there is already a clearer business case, a growth model, and a route toward scale. Their logic is different from that of donors, sponsors, or even strategic partners, which is why it is useful to distinguish them clearly from other forms of support. These distinctions are relevant because each type of relationship requires a different approach. A donor may care mainly about mission and impact. A sponsor may care more about visibility, audience, and positioning. A strategic partner may care most about shared objectives, capability development, and applied value. An in-kind partner may care most about practical collaboration and mutual learning. An investor will usually care about scalability, market potential, and return. University sponsorship guidance reflects exactly this logic. Sponsorship packages are typically expected to explain the initiative clearly, define sponsorship levels and benefits, and show what marketing opportunity, access, audience reach, or return value the sponsor may receive. That is important because sponsorship is not a vague expression of support. It is a structured exchange. At the same time, university policies also make clear that sponsorship does not automatically entitle a sponsor to use university names, logos, or marks, and that recognition must not become endorsement. That distinction is especially relevant in research and education settings, where independence and institutional credibility must remain visible. Once these categories are clearer, it becomes easier to understand not only who to approach, but also how to approach them. Once these categories are clear, the next principle becomes much easier to understand: fundraising through partnerships and sponsorships is not simply about asking for support. It is about designing an exchange of value that makes sense to both sides..

[Audio] Asking for support is one thing, but how do we create shared value? This point is central because many academic or project-based teams naturally begin from their own need. They may say that an event needs funding, a programme needs support, or a research activity needs resources. But the external organisation usually sees the situation from a different angle. It asks a different set of questions. Why should this matter to us? What do we gain by being part of it? Does it connect with our strategy, our audience, our innovation agenda, our recruitment goals, our sustainability positioning, or our place in the wider ecosystem? This is where the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's co-creation perspective is especially useful. It is relevant because it moves beyond the idea that universities create knowledge and companies simply receive it. Instead, it frames collaboration as a joint process that may involve shared objectives, complementary expertise, tacit knowledge exchange, and different forms of value creation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development also notes that some co-creation initiatives focus on early agenda-setting and mission development, while others focus on delivery, application, or scale-up. That matters because a Digital Agriculture partnership does not need to begin as a large or fully formalised relationship. It may start with a shared problem, a pilot, a demonstration, or a joint learning activity, and only later grow into a broader funding and collaboration relationship. A much stronger starting question, then, is not "Who can pay for this?" but "Who may see enough value in this to become part of it?" That value may take several forms. It may be access to students and future talent. It may be association with innovation, sustainability, or education. It may be participation in a credible platform where researchers, practitioners, and local actors meet. It may be access to pilots, field demonstrations, or real use cases. It may be visibility in a space where the organisation wants to be recognised. Or it may be an opportunity to contribute technology, expertise, or infrastructure while learning from the process. Different kinds of value may also matter at different times. Early in a relationship, visibility and relevance may be enough to spark interest. Later, applied results, stakeholder access, or collaboration opportunities may become more important. That is one reason why short-term support and long-term partnership should never be treated as exactly the same thing, even if they begin in the same conversation. This way of thinking changes the tone of the relationship. The conversation is no longer framed as a request for help. It becomes a structured discussion about why collaboration could be meaningful. And when support is built on clear mutual value, it is much more likely to continue beyond one event, one grant, or one short-term activity. In that sense, partnership-based fundraising is not only a funding mechanism. It is also a relationship-building mechanism and, in many cases, an ecosystem-building mechanism. The next practical question, then, is where those opportunities can actually be found. At this point, one practical question usually appears very quickly: where should opportunities for partnerships and sponsorships actually be sought?.

[Audio] A useful answer starts with the logic of actor mapping. Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's co-creation work and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' agrifood partnership methodology support the idea that strong collaboration begins by identifying the relevant actors in the wider ecosystem rather than by approaching organisations at random. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' toolkit is especially helpful because it treats partnership development as a process that begins with understanding the chain, the actors, the incentives, and the opportunities for collaboration. That is highly relevant in Digital Agriculture because the field involves multiple connected actors rather than one simple buyer-seller relationship. In practice, useful entry points often include existing project partners, agritech companies already involved in demonstrations or applied services, Digital Innovation Hubs, local or regional innovation organisations, farmer associations, cooperatives, chambers or cluster organisations, public authorities active in agriculture or innovation, technology transfer offices, incubators, accelerators, and exhibitors or speakers at sector events. Another important route is to look at who is already active in the ecosystem around testing, validation, advisory services, digital extension, sustainability communication, or young talent development. Those actors are often much closer to a potential partnership than organisations selected only because they are large or well known. It is also worth looking at who is repeatedly present where practical solutions are being discussed. If the same organisations appear in demonstration projects, applied conferences, sector events, field days, challenge programmes, or university-industry exchanges, that is often a useful signal. In many cases, the best opportunities do not appear first as formal funding calls, but as conversations and repeated engagement. Within TALLHEDA, one practical example of this kind of platform is the Virtual Innovation Hub. Its role is not limited to storing project material. It also supports specialised workshops, stakeholder exchange, and visibility for opportunities such as funding calls, training offers, and wider collaboration links. It is also intended to keep recorded training content available over time, which strengthens continuity beyond a single event or seminar. In that sense, the Virtual Innovation Hub is useful not only as a communication tool, but as a space where visibility, engagement, and partnership discovery can reinforce each other. So, when looking for funding-related opportunities in this area, it is often more productive to ask three concrete questions. Which actors already operate close to the problem? Which actors already benefit from being associated with innovation in this field? And which actors have something meaningful to contribute besides money? Very often, the most promising opportunities emerge where those three answers overlap. Once those opportunities start to become visible, the next question is how to identify which potential partners are strong enough to justify deeper effort..

[Audio] Strategic industry partnerships for sustainable funding do not depend only on good contacts or goodwill. They depend on clear partner selection, credible alignment of interests, and a structured path from first collaboration to longer-term value creation. This is exactly why several established frameworks are useful here, especially Responsible Partnering, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's co-creation framework, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' agrifood partnership approach. One important reference is Responsible Partnering, developed by the European University Association together with partners from industry and research organisations. This handbook is especially relevant because it was designed specifically to improve collaborative research and knowledge transfer between public research organisations and companies. It describes responsible partnering as a voluntary programme intended to improve the organisation, management, and overall effectiveness of joint research and strategic knowledge-transfer activities. It also emphasises sustainable win-win situations supported by organisational strategy and professional management. That is directly relevant here, because sustainable funding rarely comes from improvised contacts. It usually comes from relationships that are intentionally selected, designed, and managed. A second reference is again the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's co-creation framework. It is relevant because Digital Agriculture partnerships are often multi-actor rather than purely bilateral. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development notes that actors may be selected using criteria such as value-generation potential, scale-up potential, and relational proximity based on previous interactions. This matters because not every visible company or stakeholder is automatically the right strategic partner. The strongest partner is not simply the one with the largest resources. It is the one whose capabilities, incentives, and ecosystem position make the collaboration more likely to work and to grow. A third reference is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' methodological toolkit for promoting business partnerships in agrifood chains. This is particularly useful because it offers an agriculture-specific logic. It treats partnerships as processes that involve diagnosis, identification of common interests, collaborative workshops, monitoring progress, and evaluation. In other words, it does not present partnership as a single agreement. It presents it as a structured path from first alignment to more mature cooperation. That is especially relevant in Digital Agriculture because many promising relationships begin small and develop gradually through pilots, demonstrations, or carefully designed joint activities. Taken together, these methods suggest a practical message. Strategic industry partnerships should not be built only around immediate funding gaps. They should be built by identifying where mutual value is strongest, where collaboration is realistic in practice, and where the relationship has room to evolve into something more durable over time. That is the context in which partner mapping becomes useful, because it turns a broad idea of collaboration into a sharper decision about whom to prioritise. A practical way to apply that logic is through partner mapping..

[Audio] Partner mapping matters because sustainable funding rarely comes from approaching every possible organisation. It comes from approaching the right organisations for the right reasons. And to do that well, the criteria need to be explicit. One useful way to structure partner mapping is through five questions. The first question is strategic fit. Does this organisation have a meaningful connection to the topic? In Digital Agriculture, that may include precision farming, digital advisory technologies, robotics, climate-smart farming, irrigation, data use, traceability, or agritech entrepreneurship. This question matters because if the thematic fit is weak, the relationship will usually remain superficial. The second question is problem fit. What actual challenge, ambition, or opportunity might this organisation address through the relationship? Perhaps it wants visibility in innovation spaces. Perhaps it wants access to future talent. Perhaps it needs pilot environments, better understanding of users, sustainability positioning, or stronger links with the research community. This question is relevant because partnerships become stronger when they solve something concrete for both sides. The third question is capability fit. What can each side realistically contribute? One organisation may contribute funding. Another may contribute devices, software, field access, communication channels, or technical support. Another may contribute networks or policy links. This question matters because strategic partnerships are not just about who can sponsor a logo placement. They are about who can strengthen the initiative in ways that matter. The fourth question is scale potential. If the first collaboration works, can the relationship grow? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development explicitly links partner selection to the potential to generate value and scale up. This is relevant because sustainable funding depends on the ability to move from a first interaction to a broader platform, a pilot portfolio, recurring sponsorship, or a joint proposal pathway. The fifth question is reputational and governance fit. Is the organisation compatible with the mission, values, and credibility of the institution or project? Could the relationship create problems related to conflict of interest, dependence, or public perception? This question is particularly important in research settings because not every technically useful partner is automatically a strategically appropriate partner. A simple exercise can make this process more concrete. For each priority target, write one sentence answering two linked questions: why is this organisation relevant to the initiative, and why is the initiative relevant to that organisation? If that sentence cannot be written clearly, the partnership logic is probably not ready yet. That kind of clarity is not a formality. It is the beginning of strategic positioning, and Responsible Partnering is built around exactly that kind of explicit thinking about fit, roles, and long-term effectiveness. Another helpful practical step is to avoid treating all potential partners as if they belong in the same list. It is often useful to separate them into groups such as immediate priorities, medium-term prospects, and useful network contacts. That kind of distinction helps teams use time more strategically.Once promising partners have been identified, the next step is to move from mapping to relationship design. A phased model is especially helpful here..

[Audio] The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' agrifood partnership toolkit is useful because it shows that partnerships are normally built through a sequence rather than through a single pitch. It includes initial chain mapping, methods for identifying common interests, partnership-identification workshops, collaborative or negotiation workshops, pilot-project design, monitoring progress, and partnership evaluation. This is highly relevant for Digital Agriculture because these projects often involve several interconnected actors rather than one straightforward commercial exchange. A practical adaptation of this model for Digital Agriculture can be described in five stages. The first stage is diagnosis. Before proposing a formal partnership, it is useful to understand the context, the stakeholders, the chain, and the incentives. In Digital Agriculture, this may involve understanding who develops the technology, who adopts it, who validates it, who communicates it, and who influences uptake. That stage matters because partnerships fail quickly when the surrounding system is poorly understood. The second stage is alignment. Here the purpose is to identify common interests. What does each side actually want? Where is there overlap? Where is the shared value? This stage matters because many partnerships weaken early when one side wants visibility, the other wants research depth, and nobody says so clearly at the start. The third stage is collaborative design. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations refers to collaborative workshops as a way of developing partnerships through discussion of shared problems and possible solutions. In a Digital Agriculture setting, this may mean co-designing a student challenge, a field demonstration, a knowledge series, a pilot, or a stakeholder event around a clearly defined topic. That is relevant because co-designed activities are usually stronger than rigid offers developed in isolation. The fourth stage is piloting. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations explicitly recommends starting with a pilot project in order to test feasibility, reduce risk, and build cooperation and trust. It also notes that a good pilot should demonstrate the potential of larger-scale collaboration, allow all parties to evaluate whether to continue, provide clear measures of success, and include pre-determined check-in points and an end date. This is extremely relevant to sustainable funding, because a smaller first collaboration is often the foundation for a larger one later. And the fifth stage is expansion. After the pilot, the question becomes whether the relationship can move into something more durable: a recurring programme, a broader sponsorship arrangement, an industry-supported platform, a co-developed proposal, or a longer-term innovation ecosystem. This phased logic matters because it replaces vague enthusiasm with a process that can actually be managed. It also makes it easier to reduce risk on both sides, which is often one of the conditions for moving from first contact to strategic partnership. It also reminds both sides that growth does not need to happen immediately. In many successful collaborations, the relationship becomes stronger precisely because it had the chance to prove itself in smaller, lower-risk steps first..

[Audio] Strategic partnerships become sustainable funding relationships only when they are managed properly after the first agreement. That point is often underestimated. A team may succeed in attracting a sponsor, a partner, or a supporting company for one activity, but if the relationship is not stewarded well, it may stop there. Sustainable funding does not come only from securing the first yes. It comes from creating a relationship that generates reasons to continue. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' partnership toolkit is again useful here because it treats monitoring and evaluation as integral parts of partnership development, not as optional add-ons. It recommends regularly scheduled meetings to assess satisfaction, progress, problems, and new opportunities. It also asks key questions such as whether goals are being achieved, whether goals have changed, whether partners are satisfied with progress, and what needs to change to ensure continued support. That is highly relevant because long-term support depends not only on outputs but also on the quality of the process. The same toolkit also explains that partnership evaluation should include both achievements and processes. It should assess progress toward objectives, but also how the partnership operates in terms of communication, management, leadership, and the synergies created through mutual knowledge and complementary resources. This is an important idea, because a partnership can underperform either because the objectives were unrealistic or because the collaboration itself was poorly managed. In both cases, sustainable funding will weaken unless those problems are identified early. In practical terms, four habits are especially useful here. The first is structured communication. Every meaningful partnership should have named contact points, expected touchpoints, and regular updates. Even when the collaboration is moving well, it helps to have predictable moments for checking in rather than relying only on reactive communication. The second is disciplined benefit delivery. If a sponsor was promised visibility, that visibility must be delivered professionally. If a partner expected pilot access or stakeholder interaction, that should happen as agreed. Reliability in delivery is one of the strongest foundations for future renewal. The third is progression planning. After each activity, it helps to ask: what is the next meaningful step? Could this sponsor support a second event? Could this partner join a pilot? Could the collaboration evolve into a larger platform or proposal? A relationship becomes easier to sustain when the next step is imagined before the momentum of the previous step disappears. The fourth is lightweight documentation. Short updates, one-page recaps, shared calendars, and simple progress summaries often make a significant difference. They help partners see that the relationship is active, organised, and worth continuing. They also help internal teams remember what was promised, what was delivered, and what should happen next. Professional appreciation also matters. Partners do not need exaggerated praise, but they do need to feel that their contribution is recognised and visible. This is why sustainable funding should be understood as relationship continuity, not only budget continuity. A well-managed relationship creates trust, and trust increases the probability of renewal, expansion, and strategic relevance. In that sense, partnership stewardship is not a soft skill around fundraising. It is part of the funding strategy itself. With that in mind, the next step is to look at how support opportunities can be shaped so that sponsors can clearly understand what they are being invited to support..

[Audio] Let's take a look into co-branding sponsorships opportunities in Digital Agriculture. Co-branded sponsorship opportunities become much easier to develop when the support request is attached to a specific and credible asset. This matters because sponsors usually respond much better to concrete, well-designed opportunities than to broad requests. In practice, support becomes easier to mobilise when it is attached to something specific, visible, and understandable that a sponsor can support and from which the sponsor can receive legitimate recognition or access. In Digital Agriculture research, those sponsorable assets can take many forms. They may include an innovation day, a field-demonstration series, a thematic webinar series, a student challenge, an award for digital solutions, a showcase of pilot projects, a stakeholder roundtable, a demonstration plot, or a research-to-practice event. The format matters because sponsors generally do not support topics. They support concrete vehicles through which the association becomes visible and meaningful. Different formats create different kinds of value. A webinar series offers repeated visibility and continuity. A student challenge offers energy and talent access. A field demonstration offers practical credibility and real-world testing. A stakeholder roundtable offers visibility in a professional network. When a format is selected well, the sponsor can more easily understand both the immediate benefit and the broader narrative around the support. This is one place where the TALLHEDA Virtual Innovation Hub can strengthen the logic of the offer. A webinar series, challenge, showcase, or stakeholder event becomes more attractive when it is not presented as an isolated activity, but as part of a broader knowledge and engagement environment. In TALLHEDA, the Virtual Innovation Hub is not described only as a storage space. It is described as a virtual hub that can contain project material, organise specialised workshops, support stakeholder exchange, and provide visibility to funding and training opportunities. That makes it a relevant example of how a project platform can extend the life and reach of a sponsor-supported activity. Instead of saying that a sponsor will support a one-off session, it becomes possible to say that the sponsor will be associated with a wider environment for learning, dialogue, and innovation visibility. That shift is important because sponsors often look for continuity, not only one appearance. A co-branded activity that sits inside a broader, credible, and ongoing environment may therefore be more appealing than an isolated intervention with no lasting visibility or follow-up. It also allows the organiser to position the activity as part of a wider ecosystem rather than as a stand-alone request, and that usually makes the opportunity appear more strategic. To make co-branded sponsorship opportunities more usable, it helps to think in terms of package design..

[Audio] A package matters because it turns a vague funding conversation into a clear offer. University sponsorship toolkits recommend that sponsorship documents include a detailed description of the event or initiative, all sponsorship levels and the benefits for each level, and information on the marketing opportunity, access, audience, and return value that the event can offer to a company. That guidance is especially useful in Digital Agriculture because the field often brings together multiple audiences at the same time: students, researchers, agritech companies, farmers, consultants, public bodies, and innovation intermediaries. A practical way to design packages is to create several levels of involvement. For example, there may be a strategic sponsor, a thematic sponsor, a demo sponsor, or a talent sponsor. The point is not to create many labels. The point is to make each level correspond to a real and distinct benefit mix. Some co-branded opportunities may focus on visibility. These might include logo presence, acknowledgement on event materials, website mention, or presence in recap communications. Other opportunities may focus on access. These might include attendance, networking participation, employer-branding access, jury participation, or a defined role in a panel or discussion. Still others may focus on contribution. A technology company, for example, may support a field demonstration by providing equipment, licences, or technical expertise, while being recognised as a supporting demo partner. This logic is especially relevant in Digital Agriculture because the field naturally lends itself to applied formats. A company working on sensing, irrigation, analytics, traceability, or farm-management software may see more value in supporting a live demonstration or challenge than in a generic branding opportunity. A local agribusiness actor may see value in association with practical innovation and talent development. A professional network may value involvement in a credible knowledge-sharing series. To make the offer stronger, it helps to describe not only the benefit but also the reason the benefit matters. If a sponsor receives recognition in a webinar series, the meaningful point is not only logo placement. The meaningful point is association with a credible educational or innovation platform in a strategically important field. If a sponsor supports a student challenge, the value is not only visibility. It is also access to emerging talent and association with future-oriented problem solving. If a sponsor supports a field demonstration, the value is not only presence. It is also association with application, testing, and practical credibility. Another useful principle is to package around formats, not around vague ambitions. "Support a regional student challenge on Digital Agriculture" is easier to understand than "support innovation." "Become a demo partner for a precision irrigation field series" is clearer than "support visibility." "Co-support a webinar series on digital tools for sustainable farming" is more tangible than "support knowledge transfer." The clearer the format, the easier it becomes to define audience, benefits, timing, and expected outcomes. So the quality of the package does not depend only on design. It depends on how clearly the support opportunity is linked to meaningful value for the sponsor and meaningful integrity for the institution. And that leads directly to the final question, which is not how to attract support, but how to do so without weakening credibility. Finally, Co-branding and sponsorship can be very effective, but only when clear safeguards are in place..

[Audio] Safeguards matters because higher education and research institutions cannot treat sponsorship as ordinary commercial promotion. University policies are very clear that sponsorship must not be confused with endorsement. The University at Buffalo policy, for example, states that sponsorship of a university programme, activity, or event does not automatically give the sponsor the right to use university trademarks, names, or logos, and that sponsor use of university marks is limited to factual statements and must not appear as an endorsement or implied endorsement by the university. The same policy also states that the university does not endorse, directly or by implication, the products, services, or ideas of a sponsor. This is highly relevant to Digital Agriculture research, where the line between legitimate recognition and perceived product endorsement can become blurred if branding is not handled carefully. This means that every co-branded opportunity should be checked against a short set of questions. Is the sponsor mission-compatible? Is the support clearly linked to a defined activity? Are the benefits transparent and proportionate? Is academic independence protected? Are branding and logo uses explicitly agreed? Is endorsement avoided? And if data, technology, pilots, or results are involved, are roles, rights, and communication boundaries clear? These safeguards also matter in the TALLHEDA environment, because the Grant Agreement and project description place clear emphasis on stakeholder engagement, sustainability, visibility, collaboration, and the Innovation Hub, while also requiring proper handling of communication, data, and institutional responsibilities. In practical terms, that means a sponsor-supported activity can strengthen the ecosystem only if it remains well governed and aligned with the project's values and obligations. It is useful to think about safeguards not as obstacles, but as conditions that make support more credible. They protect institutional trust, help avoid confusion, and allow collaboration to grow without creating uncertainty about ownership, independence, or reputation. The strongest support relationships are therefore not simply the ones that bring resources. They are the ones in which value is clear, governance is sound, and the collaboration can grow without weakening independence or credibility. In Digital Agriculture, where innovation depends on the successful interaction of research, technology, users, and ecosystems, that is not a minor issue. It is one of the conditions for sustainable progress. Taken together, the three parts of this discussion point in the same direction. Fundraising through partnerships and sponsorships is about recognising that support can come through multiple forms of value, not only through direct grants. Building strategic industry partnerships for sustainable funding is about selecting the right actors, aligning interests carefully, and moving from first collaboration to longer-term relevance. Developing co-branded sponsorship opportunities is about shaping support into clear, visible, credible formats that others can understand and support. When these three elements come together, funding becomes more than a search for resources. It becomes part of a wider strategy for building relationships, visibility, continuity, and practical impact..

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