Nowadays, a new wave of ‘modernisation’ is challenging agriculture. The digitalisation of our world is ongoing and delivers promises - but also many concerns. How could agroecology cope with this trend? Should agroecology take full advantage of it or oppose it? And is there a middle ground approach?

Digitalisation in agriculture

In the last few years, digitalisation^[1] has been presented as a game changer for our societies that will influence every sector of human activity^[2]. Agriculture is not exempt from that. Digitalisation promises in agriculture range from optimising value chains, climate adaptation, animal health, profitability and productivity, to alleviating labour intensity^[3]. The promised benefits seem almost too good  to be true.

As with any technologies and innovations, we cannot deny the advantages of digital tools. Nevertheless, digitalisation raises many concerns too^[4]: for instance, the centralisation, ownership and privacy of data^[5], the creation of new oligopolies with possible new lock-ins^[6], social and environmental impacts of the production of such technologies^[7], all of which should prompt caution before promoting digitalisation blindly and developing supportive policies. Regardless, the push for digitalisation is strong and ongoing.

The overall support for digitalisation in agriculture resembles the Green Revolution. Many big corporate stakeholders marketed the Green Revolution as a game changer for food productivity. While the technologies that the Green Revolution brought dramatically improved food productivity, they came with many hidden flaws (soil deterioration, biodiversity loss, pollution, health issues, market globalisation, power imbalances in the food system with strong oligopolies, unfair prices for farmers, etc.) and created many lock-ins that hinder the urgent need for a transition towards agroecology^[8].

Agroecology and innovation

This resemblance with the Green Revolution is prevalent because digitalisation is embedded in a specific frame of innovation. Innovation, understood as bringing novelties, continuously appears as the world is in a perpetual process of change and is conceptualised as solutions for challenges^[9], which, however, appear in specific paradigms and related discourses and narratives^[10]. In agriculture, Anderson and Maughan (2021) demonstrated that narratives about innovation in agriculture are situated between two poles of understanding, with one pole being dominant^[11]. Discourses related to digitalisation seems to fit with the ‘Dominant Pole’^[12] while agroecology fits with the other one, the ‘Counter Pole’^[13]. 

Source: Anderson, C.R., & Maughan, C. (2021). "The Innovation Imperative": The Struggler Over Agroecology in the International Food Policy Arena

Agroecology is not opposed to technology and innovation. But for agroecologists, innovation means understanding and coping with ecological and biological processes, integrating      and valuing traditional practices, connecting with peasant and indigenous practices, and creating new tools and practices^[14]. At the same time, agroecology is mainly based on bottom-up and peer-to-peer approaches. Technology and innovation are driven by farmers’ needs and farmer’s exchanges, and are often based on low-tech, open-source, and ‘easy-to-repair’ approaches^[15]. Agroecology is firstly working with nature and its dynamics before bringing ‘out-of-the-lab’ innovations into the fields. It does not mean that agroecological farmers are against those kinds of technologies. They are just in the driver seat of those innovations. They participate in their development, design, and improvement.

When agroecology meets digitalisation

Nowadays, agroecology has become more mainstream^[16] and it is not immune to transformation and co-optation^[17]. Through the years, and due to the growing traction of agroecology, it has now integrated ever more the agriculture regime^[18], and thus suffers co-optation by regime stakeholders.

We observe this slow and unintended co-optation when digitalisation meets agroecology. Digitalisation is a trend that fits with the basic regime’s assumptions^[19]. Many tech stakeholders and initiatives try to bond digitalisation and agroecology, asking ‘how can we digitalise agroecology?’. This co-optation does not necessarily happen through malicious intent. It can simply be the result of regime stakeholders facing agroecology and understanding it as green practices that can help conventional agriculture cope with challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss^[20]. Some digital aficionados and entrepreneurs believe that they are practicing agroecology simply by adding digital tools to a farm, as it might, for instance, improve the use of chemical inputs or the efficiency of some farm processes.

But they are missing the holistic approach of agroecology and, by doing so, overlook its questioning of power relations      and basic assumptions of the regime. The agroecological transition is about mindset change before technical change. Moreover, it’s a continuous improvement process. Optimising processes is not agroecology, it’s solely one step towards it^[21]. Adding new tools in a rigged system without challenging it will provide no substantial solution.

This reduced understanding of agroecology can, instead of transforming the conventional regime into one based on agroecological principles, maintain the regime and integrate a form of ‘soft’ agroecology stripped from its transformative nature.

In addition to the risk of ‘softening’ agroecology, the encounter of agroecology with digitalisation sparks many concerns within the agroecology movement, from data governance^[22] to autonomy loss and greenwashing^[23].

Despite those concerns, agroecology cannot simply ignore the digitalisation trend and must position itself within it, taking advantage of the benefits it offers while staying true to its principles^[24]. There are already many examples around the world demonstrating how digitalisation can support agroecology (for instance, it can facilitate the exchange of information between farmers and scientists^[25], with consumers^[26]; it can provide precise local weather information^[27]; low-cost and low-tech technologies can help reducing the drudgery of some agroecological activities^[28]; it can facilitate access to some type of finance^[29] .

Based on the experience of peasants and agroecologists using digital tools, researchers and practitioners came up with an interesting approach: The agroecologisation of digitalisation. The core elements of agroecology are its 13 principles^[30] (and its 10 elements^[31]). These are guidelines that can be applied to any agricultural system to make it agroecological. Two questions help navigate the agroecologisation of digital tools: 1) is the tool helping apply the principles and, 2), is the tool coherent with the principles?

Applying the agroecology principles and following Gliessman’s scale demand rethinking and redesigning agricultural processes (e.g., optimising and reducing input, identifying and strengthening ecosystem services, and monitoring changes). Digital tools can support farmers in their commitment to agroecology. But, as agroecology is also a rights-based and transformative approach, the adoption of digital tools must also reflect the agroecology principles.

Therefore, some researchers suggest applying those principles to the use and development of digital tools for agroecology. “We claim that agroecological principles and considerations are needed as guidelines for the development and implementation of ICT^[32] in the context of agroecology, to reinforce its core values and practices. (...). The principles of ICT4AE^[33] we propose here seek to serve as a guideline for actors involved in the design, development, implementation and evaluation of ICT tools and platforms within the agroecological programs^[34]”.

Table 1: Principles of ICT4AE

Source: derived from Ajena, F., Bossard, N., Clement, C., Hilbeck, A., Oehen, B., Thomas, J., & Tisseli, E. (2020). Agroecology & Digitalisation: Traps and opportunities to transform the food system. Brussels: IFOAM Organics Europe.

In addition to these ICT4AE principles, any agroecological tool should be developed considering the ethical, social, and legal aspects (ELSA) of digital tools^[35].

Conclusion

Digitalisation is an innovation that is embedded in the current regime’s assumptions and therefore it does not challenge core issues of the system that need to be tackled to create sustainable, resilient and fair food systems. There is a risk that, through the digitalisation process, agroecology gets co-opted and loses its key transformative essence. It’s essential for agroecologists to understand that digitalisation is not neutral, and to understand its risks, potentials and its relation with the regime.

Nevertheless, digitalisation is ongoing and it might be possible to take advantage of it for agroecology. As agroecologists, we must manage to reduce digitalisation to simply new tools and technologies and position them within the agroecological approach. We promote the agroecologisation of digitalisation, by applying agroecological principles to digital tools, in terms of ways to develop them and to use them. Digital tools for agroecology must support farmers in improving their food activities based on the 13 principles and 10 Elements of Agrecology. Digital tools must respect core values of agroecology such as respect and realisation of human rights, especially peasants and indigenous people’s rights and the centrality and autonomy of farmers.

For agroecologists that are involved in dynamics and projects where digitalisation meets with agroecology, we invite them to use this opportunity to bring about the concerns about digitalisation and promote agroecology as the framework of change.