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

be involved in “ground truthing” the data that they are provided with and help improve the apps/technology. 814 Another scepticism that has been voiced relates to co-creation in general, which sets forth that elements “such as representation, inclusive recruitment, agency in decision-making, accountability, or transparency” are not considered, running the risk of diminished opportunities for underrepresented groups. 815 Another caveat in the inclusion of farmers is the fact that the process may not be truly successful, and participation may only be “virtual” if underlying power relations and conflicting interests are not addressed. 816 It is noteworthy that there may be inherent challenges in the process of engaging technology designers with farmers. It has been highlighted that it is sometimes difficult to overcome the division between developers and users. 817 In this vein, it has been put forth that there is a need for the development of a relationship of respect between scientists/developers and farmers, so that needs and opportunities may be sufficiently addressed. 818 The role of public policymakers as in-betweeners among stakeholders has been underlined in the literature. It is argued that they could assist in creating a collaborative platform that would allow citizens to interact with other stakeholders, concerning digitalization. This in turn would allow inter alia a balance in the viewpoints, and the creation of synergies. 819 The participation of diverse groups of farmers in the decision-making as well as the design of the technology could also help recalibrate the priorities of digital agriculture. For many years, the focus of agricultural research and development has been placed on staple crops such as wheat, rice, and corn, overlooking the needs of poorer producers and subsistence who grow cassava or quinoa. 820 This has also been the case with digital agriculture, with technology developers focusing on staple crops and not necessarily taking into account different farm practices such as intercropping. 821 This is also connected to the challenge that was mentioned above, with digital agriculture mainly benefiting large industrial farms which are mainly growing monocultures. The inclusion of different farmers would allow technology developers to recalibrate their priorities and appeal to farmers who are not following the monocultural model of production. 814 Simelton E and McCampbell M, ‘Do Digital Climate Services for Farmers Encourage Resilient Farming Practices? Pinpointing Gaps through the Responsible Research and Innovation Framework’ (2021) 11 Agriculture 1, pp. 16–17. 815 Ruess AK, Müller R and Pfotenhauer SM, ‘Opportunity or Responsibility? Tracing Co-Creation in the European Policy Discourse’ (2023) 50 Science and Public Policy 433, p. 441. 816 McCampbell M, Schumann C and Klerkx L, ‘Good Intentions in Complex Realities: Challenges for Designing Responsibly in Digital Agriculture in Low-Income Countries’ (2022) 62 Sociologia Ruralis 279, p. 294. 817 Lioutas ED and Charatsari C, ‘Innovating Digitally: The New Texture of Practices in Agriculture 4.0’ (2022) 62 Sociologia Ruralis 250, p. 270. 818 Mooney P, ‘What’s cooking for climate change-technofixing dinner for 10 billion’ (2018) 74(6) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 390, p. 395. 819 Kukk M, Põder A and Viira A-H, ‘The Role of Public Policies in the Digitalisation of the Agri-Food Sector. A Systematic Review’ (2022) 94 NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences 217, p. 229. 820 Tzachor A et al, ‘Responsible Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture Requires Systemic Understanding of Risks and Externalities’ (2022) 4 Nature Machine Intelligence 104, p. 105. 821 Visser O, Sippel SR and Thiemann L, ‘Imprecision Farming? Examining the (in)Accuracy and Risks of Digital Agriculture’ (2021) 86 Journal of Rural Studies 623, p. 630.

194