Can Agriculture 4.0 be responsible?
From imposing tractors connected to almost invisible electronic sensors, digital technologyis increasingly finding its way onto farms in various forms.
Ysé Commandré, IAE Montpellier;George Aboueldahab, University of Montpellier andRomane Guillot, University of Montpellier
Kinwun stock.adobe.com
It offers various services to improve resource use efficiency and strengthen farm resilience (animal and soil health, biodiversity protection, information gathering). Its use can also contribute to knowledge creation and collective governance of these resources.
However, some farmers are unhappy about this growing digital incursion into their fields. On February 9, 2022,following the publication of the agricultural sectionof the government's recovery plan, the Drôme Departmental Directorate for Territorieswas occupied by groups of farmersprotesting against the three priorities set out in the plan by the former Minister of Agriculture, Julien Denormandie, for the future of agriculture: digital technology, robotics, and genetics.
[More than 80,000 readers trust The Conversation newsletter to help them better understand the world's major issues.Subscribe today]
Because, although 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 as before, if not more so.
In addition to the "traditional" pollution caused by industrial agriculture, there is also digital contamination. In other words, while digital technology can help reduce certain types of agricultural pollution, such as that caused by inputs, the tools used to do so are not without impact.
The most skeptical also perceive 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 remains the maximization of yields and the industrialization of the sector.
A THIRD AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION?
After an initial revolution brought about by mechanization (in the 1950s) and a second revolution based on the use of chemical inputs (from the 1960s onwards), digital technology appears to embody the third agricultural revolution, whichis widely supported by public authorities.
The OECD, for example, encourages governments to use satellite imagery to "reduce the cost of monitoring many agricultural activities. Policy makers could then opt for more targeted measures whereby farmers would receive payments (or face penalties) based on observable environmental outcomes."
In France, the public sector invested €1.1 billion in agricultural research in 2015, with spending up 1.2% in volume terms year-on-year. No figures distinguish 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, 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 allocated €9.9 million over eight years. Public Sénat's YouTube channel also shares videos promoting digital technology in agriculture.
While agricultural advocacy groups see their public subsidies made conditional on a commitment to "not disturb public order"—subsidies are not renewed if their actions are deemed to undermine public order— AgTech start-ups are thriving on fundraising, before being bought out by large groups or going bankrupt even though public money had been invested in them. Many of those involved in robotics and artificial intelligence are bought out by the American agricultural machinery giant John Deere, emblematic of the challenges posed by the industrialization and digitization of agriculture.
LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE
Followingopposition from farmersto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this manufacturer has been the subject of alegislative battlein the United States. This law gives it exclusive rights to repair and modify the software that the company installs in the tractors it sells, forcing its customers to use authorized repairers... or to pirate the software. In the United States, the issue ofaccess to the right to repairis now subject to the legislation in force in each federal state.
These types of barriers limit the resilience and autonomy of farmers, who no longer have the official rightto adapt or repair these machines, even if they have the skills to do so. The John Deere case is the most criticized in this regard, and for good reason: in France, onein five tractors on the road is a John Deere. Some associations, such as Atelier Paysan, are trying to counter this phenomenon, which makes it impossible to repair agricultural equipment yourself.
Although spare parts and repair services arethree to six times more profitablethan sales of original equipment, John Deere claims that its approach is primarily aimed at ensuring the safety of agricultural machinery users. In other words, attempting to carry out repairs yourself would be dangerous for those who subsequently operate the machines.
STANDARDIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OF LIFE
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 (plant and/or animal) whose methods are far from consensual.
To be included in the official catalog, and therefore legally used and sold for commercial and productive purposes, a variety must meet the criteria of "Distinctness, Uniformity, and Stability," which severely limits genetic diversity and selection by farmers. Several farming communities—such as the Réseau semences paysannes in France and Via Campesina in Latin America—remain committed to ancestral practices that they consider more virtuous and respectful of biodiversity.
Some also believe that the use of digital technology for genetic advances is responsible for the industrial appropriation of common natural resources.
Jean-Christophe Verhaegen/AFP
The proliferation of sensors and connected objects also raises questions about the ability of Agriculture 4.0 to evolve in diversified cropping systems.However, some associations recommendthe use of farm-saved seeds, heirloom varieties, and varietal mixtures to better adapt to climate change and local conditions. However, the high heterogeneity of these varieties (in terms of size, shape, input requirements, etc.) makes them difficult to grow on an industrial scale.
Genetic advances, on the contrary, are moving towards a logic of standardization of living organisms to facilitate the use of new tools, as was the case with agricultural mechanization, by adapting living organisms to tools rather than tools to living organisms.
DATA AT STAKE
Another controversial aspect of digitization is the data collection it generates: thanks to sensors and onboard computers, software records and transmits a wealth of data such as soil moisture, nitrogen and other nutrient levels, seed placement, fertilizer and pesticide use, and crop quality and quantity.
Several researchers have raised concerns about the risk of this data being resold to develop new solutions aimed at... farmers themselves. In 2011, John Deerecollected and sharedthe production data of farmers using its connected tractorswith other companies in the sector, 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 makes Challenger and Massey Ferguson machines, initially refused to disclose its customers' production data to third parties. However, as some farmers demanded more data-related services, this policy was changed.
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 farming more vulnerable: cyberattacks and crop predictions by region pose threats to food security. Significant weaknesses have been identified in John Deere's software and New Holland's CNH Industrial systems.
DIGITAL AGRICULTURE: A RESPONSIBLE APPROACH?
Agriculture 4.0 in the hands of multinational corporations poses significant risks to the agricultural sector and farmers, but not all digital tools should be dismissed.
Some may have real potential to support the development of resilient and autonomous agriculture. Through their immediacy and ease of access, they can increase knowledge sharing and contribute to the preservation of farmers' knowledge. Via 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 of losing ownership of their data and knowledge.
The creation of knowledge and digital tools by, with, and for farmers appears essential. Certain initiatives, such as the InPACT cluster, an associative platform resulting from the merger of agricultural associative networks, propose building technological sovereignty for farmers through the active integration of farmers into innovation and creation processes. The goal is to build tools that are both better adapted and intensive in know-how and knowledge, and which do not deprive farmers of their expertise.
Ysé Commandré, PhD student in management sciences, IAE Montpellier;George Aboueldahab, PhD student, University of Montpellier andRomane Guillot, PhD student, University of Montpellier
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.