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 designed to improve the efficient use of resources and strengthen the resilience of farms (animal and soil health, biodiversity conservation, data collection). Its use can also contribute to knowledge generation and the collective governance of these resources.
Some farmers, however, 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 touted as a solution to environmental challenges—such as reducing 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 the issue of digital pollution. In other words, while digital technology can help reduce certain types of agricultural pollution—such as pollution from inputs—the tools used to achieve this are not without their own environmental impact.
The most skeptical observers also see a risk that farmers will lose their autonomy and that non-productivist forms of agriculture will disappear.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 represent the third agricultural revolution, whichis widely supported by public authorities.
For example, the OECD encourages governments to make use of satellite imagery in order to “reduce the cost of monitoring a wide range of 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, with spending up 1.2% year-over-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 awarded a budget of 9.9 million euros over eight years. The Public Sénat YouTube channel also features videos promoting digital technology in agriculture.
While agricultural advocacy groups find their public subsidies contingent on a commitment “not to disturb the public order”—subsidies are not renewed if their actions are deemed to undermine public order— AgTech startups are thriving on fundraising, only to be acquired by large corporations or go bankrupt even though public money had been invested in them. Many of those focused on robotics and artificial intelligence are acquired by the American agricultural machinery giant John Deere, emblematic of 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 installs in 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’ ability to be resilient and self-reliant, as they 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 widely criticized in this regard, and for good reason: in France, onein five tractors on the road is a John Deere. Some organizations, such as Atelier Paysan, are trying to counter this trend, which makes it impossible to repair farm equipment on one’s own.
Although spare parts and repair services arethree to six times more profitablethan sales of new equipment, John Deere maintains that its primary goal is to ensure the safety of agricultural machinery operators. In other words, attempting to perform repairs on one’s own could be dangerous for those who will eventually operate the machines.
STANDARDIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OF THE LIVING WORLD
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 production purposes—a variety must meet the criteria of “Distinction, Uniformity, and Stability,” which severely limit genetic diversity and farmer-led selection. Several farming communities—such as the Réseau semences paysannes in France or La Via Campesina in Latin America—remain committed to traditional practices that they consider more virtuous 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 the ability of Agriculture 4.0 to adapt to diversified cropping systems.However, some organizations recommendthe use of heirloom seeds, traditional varieties, and seed mixtures 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 standardization of living organisms to facilitate the use of new tools, as was the case during the mechanization of agriculture, by adapting living organisms to the tools rather than 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, including 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 data 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 share its customers’ production data with third parties. However, as some farmers began demanding more data-driven 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 farming more vulnerable: cyberattacks and region-specific crop yield predictions pose threats to food security. Yet 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 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 help preserve 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 essential. Certain initiatives, such as the InPACT cluster—a collaborative platform born from the merger of agricultural networks—aim to build technological sovereignty for farmers through their active integration into innovation and development processes. The goal is to create 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, PhD candidate in management science, IAE Montpellier;George Aboueldahab, PhD Candidate, University of Montpellier andRomane Guillot, PhD Candidate, University of Montpellier
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.