The Politics of Digital Agricultural Technologies: A Preliminary Review

Abstract

Digital technologies are being developed and adopted across the agro-food system, from farm to fork. Within decision-making spaces, however, little attention is being paid to political factors arising from such technological developments. This review draws from critical social sciences to examine emerging technologies and big data systems in agriculture and assesses some key issues arising in the field. We begin with an introduction and review of the so-called 'digital revolution' and then briefly outline how political economy is effective for understanding major challenges for governing technologies and data systems in agriculture. These challenges include: (1) data ownership and control, (2) the production of technologies and data development, and (3) data security. We then use literature and examples to consider the extent to which the political and economic landscape can be shifted to support greater equity in agriculture, while reflecting on structural challenges and limits. In doing so, we emphasise that while there are significant systemic tensions between digital ag-tech development and agroecological approaches, we do not see them as mutually exclusive per se. This article intends to provide decision-makers, practitioners and scholars from a wide range of disciplines with a timely assessment of agro-food digitalisation that attends to political economic factors. In doing so, this article contributes to policy and decision-making discussions, which, from our perspective, continue to be rather technocentric in nature while paying little attention to how digital technologies can support agroecological systems specifically.

Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World

“…A third issue relates to the nature, deployment and ownership of the data produced by PLF technologies [ 18 , 68 ]. Currently, most of the data produced by existing PLF technologies is site specific (i.e., it serves to adjust the management on a given farm, transport unit or slaughterhouse, and is not exchanged between the food chain actors).…”

“…With this, of course, comes a certain number of concerns, not the least of them folding back to the role and expertise of the farmer/stock-person, now potentially an observer less of animals than of data, or to the established forms of agricultural advisory and decision-making structures that guide on-farm practice. As an increasing number of observers are pointing out, the growth of PLF technologies on farms raises new challenges for data management, distribution and ownership as well as recasting the role of the farmer or stock-person both with respect to the animals under their charge and to the valuable and sensitive data that increasingly represent them [ 17 , 18 , 19 ].…”

The Internet of Things: Social dimensions

“…A growing body of social research has begun to examine the experiences of farmers with "smart farm" IoT technologies, thus moving beyond the urban context that has preoccupied many studies thus far (Blok & Gremmen, 2018;Eastwood, Klerkx, Ayre, & Dela Rue, 2019;Klerkx, Jakku, & Labarthe, 2019;Rotz et al, 2019). One example is a project based on New Zealand (Eastwood et al, 2019), including interviews with stakeholders involved with smart dairy farming technologies.…”

Searching for sustainability in the digital agriculture debate: an alternative approach for a systemic transition

“…From the perspective of political economy, Rotz et al (2019) have written one of the latest reviews of the politics of digital agricultural technologies, covering three major challenges: ownership and management over data; manufacture of technologies and development; and data security. They use the encompassing term digital agriculture as a reference to both precision agriculture and big data applications.…”

“…They use the encompassing term digital agriculture as a reference to both precision agriculture and big data applications. Rotz et al (2019) justify their review on the basis that previous commentators, such as Bronson and Knezvic (2016); Carolan (2017); Chi et al (2017) and Mooney and ETC (2018) have taken a sceptical view towards digitalisation, with regard to its possibilities to improve and environmental sustainability. As a result, Rotz et al (2019, p. 205) seek to advance the discussion from the perspective of deploying digital technologies that can effectively address inequalities and environmental degradation; rather than taking for granted their mutual exclusivity with digitalisation.…”