Can Agriculture 4.0 Be Sustainable?
From massive tractors connected to nearly invisible electronic sensors, digital technologyis becoming increasingly prevalent on farms in various forms.
Ysé Commandré, IAE Montpellier;George Aboueldahab, University of Montpellier andRomane Guillot, University of Montpellier
It offers various services to improve the efficiency of resource use and strengthen the resilience of farms (animal and soil health, biodiversity conservation, data collection). Its use can also contribute to knowledge creation and the collective governance of these resources.
However, some farmers view this growing digital presence in their fields with skepticism. On February 9, 2022,following the release of the agricultural componentof the government’s recovery plan, the Drôme Departmental Directorate of Territorieswas occupied by groups of farmersprotesting the three pillars outlined in the plan by former Agriculture Minister Julien Denormandie for the future of agriculture: digital technology, robotics, and genetics.
[More than 80,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to better understand the world’s major issues.Subscribe today]
For while it is often presented as a solution to environmental challenges—for example, to reduce the use of inputs—“Agriculture 4.0” could also make the sector just as polluting, if not more so, than before.
In addition to the “traditional” forms of pollution caused by industrial agriculture, there is also pollution from digital technology. In other words, while digital technology can help reduce certain types of agricultural pollution—such as that caused by inputs—the tools used to achieve this are not without their own impact.
The most skeptical observers also see the risk of farmers losing their autonomy and the disappearance of non-productivist forms of agriculture.In a 2021 report, the research firm Basic concluded that the dominant logic behind the digitization of agriculture remained the maximization of yields and the industrialization of the sector.
A THIRD AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION?
Following an initial revolution driven by mechanization (in the 1950s) and a second one based on the use of chemical inputs (beginning in the 1960s), digital technology appears to embody the third agricultural revolution, whichis widely supported by government authorities.
For example, the OECD encourages countries to make use of satellite imagery in order to “reduce the cost of monitoring many agricultural activities. Policy makers could thus opt for more targeted measures under which farmers would receive payments (or face penalties) based on observable environmental outcomes.”
In France, the public sector invested 1.1 billion euros in agricultural research in 2015, and its spending increased by 1.2% in volume terms year-over-year. No figures break down the distinction between R&D related to digital agriculture and other R&D, but the government is actively working to build an ecosystem that supports “digital agriculture.” This is evidenced by the Digital Farm initiative, which submitted a report on the current state and needs of the ecosystem to the Ministry of Agriculture inFebruary 2022.
The DigitAg Convergence Institute, which aims to bring together scientific research projects on digital agriculture, has been awarded a budget of 9.9 million euros over eight years. Public Sénat’s YouTube channel also features videos promoting digital technology in agriculture.
While agricultural advocacy groups have their public subsidies made contingent on a commitment “not to disturb public order”—subsidies are not renewed if they take actions deemed to undermine public order— AgTech startups are thriving on fundraising, only to be acquired by large corporations or go bankrupt even after public funds have been invested in them. Many of those focused on robotics and artificial intelligence are acquired by the American agricultural machinery giant John Deere, which epitomizes the challenges posed by the industrialization and digitization of agriculture.
LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE
Followingfarmers’ oppositionto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this manufacturer has indeed been the subject of alegislative battlein the United States. This law grants the company exclusive rights to repair and modify the software it integrates into the tractors it sells, forcing its customers to use authorized repair shops… or to pirate the software. In the United States, the issue ofaccess to the right to repairis now governed by the laws in effect in each individual state.
These types of barriers limit farmers’ resilience and autonomy, as they no longer have the official rightto adapt or repair these machines, even if they have the necessary skills. The John Deere case is the most widely criticized in this regard, and for good reason: in France, oneout of every five tractors on the road is a John Deere. Some organizations, such as L’Atelier Paysan, are trying to counter this trend, which makes it impossible to repair farm equipment on one’s own.
Although replacement parts and repair services are3 to 6 times more profitablethan sales of new equipment, John Deere states that its primary goal is to ensure the safety of agricultural machinery operators. In other words, attempting to perform a repair on one’s own would be dangerous for those who will eventually operate the machines.
STANDARDIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OF LIVING ORGANISMS
If the use of digital technology meets with resistance, it is also because it is often associated with genetic innovations, particularly in the context of genetic selection practices (for plants and/or animals), the methods of which are far from being universally accepted.
To be listed in the official catalog—and thus legally used and sold for commercial and productive purposes—a variety must meet the criteria of “Distinction, Uniformity, and Stability,” which severely limit genetic diversity and farmer-led selection. Several farmers’ communities—such as the Réseau semences paysannes in France and La Via Campesina in Latin America—remain committed to traditional practices that they consider more beneficial and respectful of biodiversity.
Some also believe that the use of digital technology for genetic advancements is responsible for the industrial appropriation of shared natural resources.
The proliferation of sensors and connected devices also raises questions about Agriculture 4.0’s ability to adapt to diversified cropping systems.However, some associations recommendthe use of heirloom seeds, traditional varieties, and mixed seed blends to better adapt to climate change and local conditions. However, the high degree of heterogeneity among these varieties (in terms of size, shape, input requirements, and other factors) makes them difficult to grow on an industrial scale.
On the contrary, advances in genetics are moving toward a model of standardization of living organisms to facilitate the use of new tools, just as was the case during the mechanization of agriculture, by adapting living organisms to the tools rather than adapting the tools to living organisms.
DATA AT STAKE
Another controversial aspect of digitization is the data collection it entails: using sensors and onboard computers, software records and transmits a wide range of data, such as soil moisture, nitrogen levels and other nutrients, the placement of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, as well as the quality and quantity of the harvest.
Several researchershaveraised concerns about the risk of this data being resold to develop new solutions aimed at… the farmers themselves. As early as 2011, John Deerecollected and sharedproduction data from farmers using its connected tractorswith other companies in the industry—without informing them.
But some farmers are also willing to share their information with these companies so that they can improve the solutions they sell. AGCO Corp., the world’sfourth-largesttractor manufacturer, which produces Challenger and Massey Ferguson machines, initially refused to disclose its customers’ production data to third parties. As some farmers demanded more data-related services, this policy was revised.
On a societal level, the alliance between agrochemical and digital giants raises concerns about the growing dependence of our food supply on multinational corporations. The collection and use of agricultural data make agriculture more vulnerable: cyberattacks and region-specific crop yield predictions pose threats to food security. Moreover, significant vulnerabilities have been identified in John Deere’s software and CNH Industrial’s New Holland systems.
DIGITAL AGRICULTURE: IS IT SUSTAINABLE?
Agriculture 4.0 in the hands of multinational corporations poses significant risks to the agricultural sector and to farmers, but digital tools are not all bad.
Some may have real potential to support the development of resilient and self-sufficient agriculture. Thanks to their immediacy and ease of access, they can increase knowledge sharing and contribute to the preservation of farmers’ traditional knowledge. Through social media, farmers exchange advice, feedback, and knowledge related to farming practices…
Making data available through open, transparent, and consensual processes can lead to the creation of collaborative networks and improve farmers’ access to technology. However, these initiatives are limited by farmers’ legitimate fears that their data and knowledge will be taken away from them.
The creation of digital knowledge and tools by, with, and for farmers appears to be essential. Certain initiatives, such as the InPACT cluster—a collaborative platform resulting from the merger of agricultural nonprofit networks—aim to build technological sovereignty for farmers by actively involving them in innovation and development processes. The goal is to develop tools that are not only better suited to farmers’ needs but also rich in know-how and knowledge, and that do not strip farmers of their expertise.
Ysé Commandré, Ph.D. candidate in management sciences, IAE Montpellier;George Aboueldahab, Ph.D. candidate, University of Montpellier andRomane Guillot, Ph.D. candidate, University of Montpellier
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.