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

However, it is not certain that all farmers will be open to the model of inclusion. Some producers of traditional and artisanal products have been skeptical of digitalization: for example, in Switzerland, “traditional cheese producer organisations (…) have banned milking robots from their production”. 822 This is also connected to one of the risks of the introduction of digital agriculture, which is the loss of experiential knowledge. While farmers will be free from mundane tasks, they will also possibly be removed from day to-day on-farm observation, 823 which could also be problematic for the transmission of traditional agricultural knowledge to future generations. In light of the above, it was highlighted that through responsible research and innovation, it would be possible to anticipate farmers’ needs but also risks of digital agriculture. This would also be in line with the exigencies of the human right to science obligations incumbent upon states. As it was highlighted in the previous section, under the human right to science, states are under the obligation to protect people from the negative effects of technology. With farmer knowledge incorporated into the design, and the needs of the local population in mind, it would be possible to design and develop digital agriculture technologies which would cater to a range of farmers, not solely industrial farms. In turn, these farmers would be more prone to “ground truth” the data and help in enhancing the technology further. Nevertheless, a participatory process would have its challenges. These include as was mentioned, considering the local context and the cultural relations, as well as the issue of scaling the product, with the issue of addressing power relations and the divide between farmers and scientists being of outmost importance. In any case, it would be useful for states in terms of policy making to adopt a more inclusive approach to technology design and development, both in terms of policy making but also in terms of complying with their human rights obligations under the human right to science. Conclusion In summary, in this submission, I aimed to examine digital agriculture-a new technology which is gaining more traction and attention- through an approach based on human rights obligations of states, as well as RRI. After an analysis of the human right to science, it was highlighted that states are under the obligation to facilitate the access to technology, as well as an obligation to protect from the negative impacts that science and technology might have on human rights enjoyment. In order to address the first obligation, it was demonstrated that states should introduce policies and measures that would help lift the hurdles that farmers face in accessing digital agriculture, including for example lack of internet connection and digital illiteracy. Moreover, part of the obligation to protect from technological risks is the anticipation of such risks. For this reason, states should have in place policies that help protect their people. It was demonstrated how RRI might be a possible avenue to do so, highlighting the possible benefits that this approach could offer for the development as well as 822 Finger R, ‘Digital Innovations for Sustainable and Resilient Agricultural Systems’ (2023) 50 European Review of Agricultural Economics 1277, p. 1294. 823 Ingram J and Maye D, ‘What Are the Implications of Digitalisation for Agricultural Knowledge?’ (2020) 4 Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 1, p. 3.

195