New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

A participatory approach thus, where farmers take part in the technology design process, is useful in many ways. In terms of policy making, it could help bridge the lag that sometimes exists between policy making and technological progress. 797 It would thus assist in anticipating the effects that could be envisaged and assist in addressing them in a proactive manner instead of reactively. A participatory approach would also be helpful in highlighting farmer’s needs and priorities, and it would help incorporate their tacit knowledge within the technology. 798 If farmers are part of the testing processes as well, it could lead to a heightened trust in the technology and more farmers would adopt it. 799 It has been argued that in relation to agricultural decision support systems (such as apps providing recommendations based on data from e.g. drones, sensors and satellites), technology developers will have to take into account elements that end-users (farmers) would want to be part of the technology. For example, they should make sure that they are using a user-friendly interface or that there is adaptability of the technology to peculiar farm situations, or the fact that maybe farmers are unwilling to turn to new farm advisors in order to use the proposed technology. 800 Participatory design could potentially also provide the benefit of the technology reaching stakeholders that it would otherwise be impossible or difficult to reach, such as older or remote rural farmers. 801 The latter would be a very welcome advancement for many reasons. Firstly, it has been highlighted that digital agriculture is mainly benefitting large/industrial farms. 802 This is mainly due to two reasons, firstly, the barriers that small food producers face in accessing digital agriculture technology, for example due to cost 803 and lack of infrastructure such as access to internet, 804 but also because the digital agriculture paradigm is based on monocultures, which are associated with intensive/industrial agriculture. 805 To illustrate, it has been estimated that “all agricultural robots currently under commercial development require a monoculture”. 806 The local needs and type of production may play an important role in the farmers’ decision to adopt (or not 797 Bronson K, ‘Smart Farming: Including Rights Holders for Responsible Agricultural Innovation’ (2018) 8 Technology Innovation Management Review 7, p. 11. 798 Schillings J, Bennett R and Rose DC, ‘Managing End-User Participation for the Adoption of Digital Livestock Technologies: Expectations, Performance, Relationships, and Support’ (2024) 30(2) The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 277, p. 279. 799 Ibid. 800 Gardezi M et al, ‘In Pursuit of Responsible Innovation for Precision Agriculture Technologies’ (2022) 9(2) Journal of Responsible Innovation 224, pp. 238–239. 801 Townsend LC and Noble C, ‘Variable Rate Precision Farming and Advisory Services in Scotland: Supporting Responsible Digital Innovation?’ (2022) 62 Sociologia Ruralis 212, p. 216. 802 Fraser A, ‘“You Can’t Eat Data”?: Moving beyond the Misconfigured Innovations of Smart Farming’ (2022) 91 Journal of Rural Studies 200, p. 203. 803 Stock R and Gardezi M, ‘Make Bloom and Let Wither: Biopolitics of Precision Agriculture at the Dawn of Surveillance Capitalism’ (2021) 122 Geoforum 193, p. 196. 804 Mehrabi Z et al, ‘The Global Divide in Data-Driven Farming’ (2021) 4 Nature Sustainability 154, p. 156. 805 Bronson K, ‘Looking through a Responsible Innovation Lens at Uneven Engagements with Digital Farming’ (2019) 90–91(1) NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 1, p. 4. 806 Reisman E, ‘Sanitizing Agri-Food Tech: COVID-19 and the Politics of Expectation’ (2021) 48 Journal of Peasant Studies 910, p. 920.

192