PowerPoint Presentation

5 Future Funding Scenarios.

Future Funding Scenarios. The Case for Scenario Planning.

adsdasdad What macro-forces are shaping the funding environment? Political: EU Green Deal, CAP post-2027, food sovereignty mandates , Economic: Interest rate environment, VC pullback, public budget constraints, Social: Farmer digital literacy, food system trust, rural demographic shift , Technological: AI in grant management, satellite MRV, smart contract maturity , Legal: CSRD, Data Act, EU Taxonomy enforcement timeline , Environmental: Biodiversity loss urgency, drought frequency, carbon price volatility PESTLE Analysis.

Future Funding Scenarios. Scenario 1 – Blended Finance.

Future Funding Scenarios. FUTURE STATE. SCENARIO SIGNALS.

Future Funding Scenarios. FUTURE STATE. SCENARIO SIGNALS.

Future Funding Scenarios. FUTURE STATE. SCENARIO SIGNALS.

Future Funding Scenarios. FUTURE STATE. SCENARIO SIGNALS.

Future Funding Scenarios. FUTURE STATE. SCENARIO SIGNALS.

[Audio] The three resource categories we just discussed are not independent choices. They are interdependent components of a portfolio, and this is the reframing I want you to take from this slide. In Digital Agriculture, resource allocation should not be approached as a single-choice optimisation problem — as if the goal is to identify the single best investment and direct everything toward it. Instead, it should be understood as a portfolio construction exercise — where the objective is to combine different types of investments in a way that maximises overall impact under real-world constraints. The diagram on this slide shows why. Impact is not generated by isolated actions. Technology development without outreach stays in the lab. An isolated pilot without a deployment plan has no path to scale. Outreach activities without a technological backbone generate engagement but not lasting change. Technology alone, without adoption, creates no value for farmers. What generates impact is the combination: pilot and validation activities reduce uncertainty and build credibility; technology development creates the infrastructure for efficiency and scale; outreach and advisory activities translate technical capabilities into behavioural change; and scaling activities ensure that successful solutions move beyond isolated experiments and generate systemic impact. The allocation question, then, is not "which of these should we fund?" It's "how do we resource all four phases in the right proportions, given where we are in the initiative's lifecycle?" That is a portfolio question, and it requires portfolio thinking. And to support that thinking, here is the reference tool that should guide you in choosing which decision instrument to apply in which situation..

Future Funding Scenarios. Cross-scenario analysis across five strategic dimensions helps identify robust strategies that work across multiple futures.

[Audio] This table is designed to be a practical reference — something you can return to whenever you face an allocation decision and need to identify the right starting point. The logic is straightforward. Match the tool to the situation, not to the team's comfort zone. When you have a long list of candidate activities and need a rapid first-pass prioritisation — use the Impact-Effort Matrix. It's fast, collaborative, and requires no data. When you're comparing two to four activities with quantifiable financial returns — use CBA plus ROI. These give you a clear, evidence-based financial ranking. When multiple criteria are involved, some of them non-financial, and the team needs to align around a shared decision — use Weighted Scoring. It surfaces disagreements about priorities before they become disputes about outcomes. When the stakes are high, multiple stakeholders are involved, and you need a fully auditable rationale — use MCDA. It's the most rigorous of the tools, and produces the most defensible documentation. When you need to test whether your budget is robust to uncertainty in your assumptions — apply Sensitivity Analysis to your CBA or ROI estimates. And before any of these: always start with the KPI Mapping exercise to make sure the activities you're evaluating actually connect to the objectives you are supposed to be achieving. This is the non-negotiable first step. Applying analytical rigour to the wrong activities is worse than applying no analysis at all. In practice, these tools are used in sequence and in combination. You start with KPI mapping, filter quickly with the Impact-Effort Matrix, compare frontrunners with CBA, and use MCDA when the final decision requires full documentation. The discipline is knowing which layer you're in..

[Audio] We've covered a lot of ground, so let me distil this into the four ideas that I want you to carry forward. First: objectives before everything. No tool in this module produces meaningful results unless you have first defined what you are trying to achieve and how you will measure it. The KPI mapping exercise is not optional — it is the entry point to every other method we've discussed. Start there, every time. Second: quantify what you can. CBA, weighted scoring, and ROI don't claim to eliminate uncertainty. What they do is make uncertainty visible and manageable. They transform subjective preferences into comparable, evidence-based estimates. That is enormously valuable, and it is available to any team willing to invest the time in using these tools honestly. Third: include what you cannot quantify. Mission alignment, ecosystem value, and risk tolerance shape the long-term sustainability of a Digital Agriculture initiative in ways that no financial model fully captures. If you build your allocation decisions purely on quantitative scores, you will underinvest in the things that actually sustain a project over time. Build qualitative criteria explicitly into your evaluation frameworks and give them real weight. Fourth: balance your resource portfolio. People, technology, and outreach are all necessary. A portfolio dominated by any one of them is at risk. As the initiative matures, the balance should shift — and revisiting that balance at every major allocation decision point is one of the most important habits a project team can develop. Analytical tools do not replace leadership judgement. What they do is improve it — by making assumptions explicit, making comparisons fair, and making decisions traceable. That is the discipline this module is designed to build.

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..