So far, this chapter has discussed the role of a range of measures to overcome barriers to adoption of agricultural automation, focusing on the needs of small-scale producers. This section reviews what needs to be done to ensure that agricultural automation adoption contributes to sustainable and resilient agrifood systems and avoids further environmental degradation. As mentioned, motorized mechanization has generated many benefits, including productivity gains, resulting in enhanced food security, reduced poverty, and better health and well-being, among many others. However, this has often been at the cost of environmental sustainability, with effects such as biodiversity loss, soil compaction and erosion, and water degradation. These impacts can be greatly minimized or avoided if accompanied by appropriate policies, legislation and investments, and the use of more advanced technologies such as digital automation solutions. The sections below examine important areas of focus.
Safeguarding against biodiversity loss, land degradation and carbon emissions
Motorized mechanization can lead to farmland expansion at the cost of forests and savannah, contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss (see Chapter 3). Such negative effects can be – at least partially – addressed or avoided by land-use planning and monitoring, enabled by digital automation technologies that target the land most valuable for mitigating climate change and conserving biodiversity. Investments should also follow the principles of responsible investment in agriculture and agrifood systems, endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security.31
Sustainable cultivation strategies such as crop–livestock–forestry systems, which come with fewer climatic effects and allow for more biodiversity, can also play a role in mitigating negative environmental effects.32 One of the 27 case studies examined in Chapter 3, Justdiggit (see Annex 1), promotes large-scale landscape restoration in Africa, for example, by turning degraded rangelands into green, fertile land. This process of landscape restoration is implemented through rainwater harvesting, grazing management and tree pruning. It is assisted by remote sensors that monitor tree growth and calculate volumes of associated carbon sequestration.33 In some countries, governments have successfully minimized farmland expansion with land-use planning and monitoring. Such initiatives and practices should be encouraged and possibly replicated elsewhere. In other countries, public interventions have contributed to negative effects, for example, when supporting large-scale block farming schemes or land investments. Any such interventions still in place should be halted and avoided elsewhere.
A combination of technologies can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance soil carbon storage, allowing agriculture to achieve negative net emissions while maintaining high productivity. Through synergies between digital automation, crop and microbial genetics, and electrification, an estimated 71 percent reduction in GHG emissions from row-crop agriculture is possible within the next 15 years. It is estimated that current row-crop agricultural practices generate about 5 percent of total GHG emissions in the European Union and the United States of America. Emerging voluntary and regulatory ecosystem service markets can incentivize progress along this transition pathway and guide public and private investments towards technology development.34
Lighter machinery can reduce soil compaction and erosion, often caused by large motorized machinery. Moreover, conservation agriculture with crop rotation can reduce soil erosion by up to 99 percent, using rippers or direct planters to replace ploughs, and thus promoting minimum soil disturbance (i.e. no tillage), maintenance of a permanent soil cover, and plant species diversification.35 It appears to be the way forward for agriculture across the globe, including in low- and middle-income countries.22 There is evidence that combining motorized mechanization with reduced tillage can lead to synergies between productivity and soil health.36 However, in order to overcome some of the challenges associated with this practice, locally adapted solutions must be developed.37 Applied technical and agronomic research can explore mechanization solutions that best fit local agroecological conditions. For example, there is increasing research on drone input application for small farms – a technology with numerous potential benefits: exposure to pesticides is reduced, and application is possible in fields that are too wet or problematic for machines to access, as well as in standing crops (avoiding crop damage from machinery movements).
Nudging automation technologies known to be environmentally friendly
The notion of scale-appropriate mechanization, where machines are adapted to farm size (not farm size adapted to machines),38 can help reduce negative environmental effects. For example, small four-wheel or two-wheel tractors are better able than large tractors to manoeuvre around landscape features and on-farm trees. Small swarm robots, now in the experimental phase, can generate environmental benefits, such as reducing soil compaction while delivering higher yields. While most agricultural robots currently in the pipeline have very little decision-making capacity, in the long term, AI has the capacity to make them useful for environmental sustainability. For example, swarm robots embedded with AI can avoid field obstacles and precisely target pests and weeds, thus reducing chemical use and protecting biodiversity.
The scaling of these technologies is a major challenge; without scaling, it is not possible to optimize their potential to reduce negative environmental effects and increase productivity in a sustainable manner (see Chapter 3). High purchasing and operation costs represent an important obstacle to scaling, especially for small-scale producers; to increase affordability, there needs to be a focus on technology improvement and innovative business models. Mobile phones are a case in point: scalability made them much more affordable, paving the way for smartphones, which are increasingly used for precision agriculture.
Farmers themselves are in the best position to choose which mechanization solutions fit their local agroecological conditions. Governments must create an enabling environment, disseminating information on available technologies and how to use them to achieve multiple objectives, including environmental sustainability. An example of such information support is the mechanization catalogue prepared by FAO in collaboration with the Centre for Agricultural Infrastructure Development and Mechanization Promotion and the Agriculture Machinery Entrepreneurs Association in Nepal. The catalogue contains straightforward information about the various machines available on the Nepalese market, with a focus on those that are gender-sensitive and adapted to small-scale agricultural production.29
Several governments have introduced legislation to mitigate the adverse environmental and social impacts of agricultural supply chains by requiring companies to establish mandatory risk-based due diligence systems.39 For example, the European Commission has adopted a proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. It aims to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour throughout global value chains. Companies must identify, prevent, end or mitigate the adverse impacts of their activities on human rights (e.g. child labour and worker exploitation) and on the environment (e.g. pollution and biodiversity loss). For businesses, these new rules will bring legal certainty and create a level playing field; for consumers and investors, they will provide greater transparency.40
Awareness raising and improved communication
One of the lessons learned from the 27 case studies is that consumers have yet to appreciate precision agriculture and its potential in terms of efficiency, environmental sustainability and animal welfare. Indeed, while the term “low-input farming” (and its association with environmental sustainability) is immediately understood by consumers, “precision agriculture” still fails to resonate. Communication is key. The fact that vertical farming, for example, cannot be labelled organic in some countries hinders communication of its benefits to consumers. Policies can help prioritize legislation and certification for precision agriculture in order to clearly communicate its advantages to consumers and thus strengthen the business case for investment (see Chapter 3). In order for precision agriculture to realize its potential environmental benefits, it is fundamental to establish a dialogue across agrifood systems in their entirety.25 Digital communication itself can play a key role in raising awareness, disseminating information and performing advocacy for precision agriculture.
