PRECISION AGRICULTURE ▶▶▶
Risk of digital diverge The European Parliament commissioned a study in 2017 into the social, legal and ethical implications of precision agriculture. The study focused mostly on risks in data privacy and ownership. The study warns of uniform EU wide measures, as the implications of pre- cision agriculture uptake are very much de- pending on farm type and size, environmen- tal conditions and not in the least on the ability to access data and information sys- tems. Smaller farms may be unable to keep up and the risk of a digital divide is emerging.
The study concludes that a farmer’s owned data repository is perhaps the best safeguard for privacy. To conclude, an increase in farms that are managed under precision agriculture will have a huge impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and thus on cli- mate change. Scientists should focus more on the climate mitigation potential. The machine manufacturers, a main supplier of precision agriculture technologies, can promote this by reducing the complexity of precision agri- culture for instance by better implementing
sector wide standards, harmonising their mar- keting messages and focus on ease-of-use. The European Union can look to improving the benefits for farmers by rewarding preci- sion agriculture management practices through the CAP, creating an extra business wise incentive. And most importantly, the farmers, farmers organisations together with other stakeholders should solve the data own- ership debate and come with appropriate solutions that allow farmers to take-up the most advanced data intensive practices with- out sacrificing their data privacy and integrity.
Precision agriculture as a management strategy for arable farming involves the use of data and technology to improve – amongst other things – fertiliser efficiency, sometimes paraphrased as ‘growing more with less’.
Not able to make a business case
Recently in the Netherlands a survey was conducted amongst arable farmers, accom- panied by interviews with stakeholders. Interviewed farmers acknowledge that pre- cision agriculture has many benefits, and almost all are very much aware of the poten- tial. However, they are not convinced that it is already compatible to their business. The most heard reservation is that farmers cannot make their individual business case.
14
First of all because it is too complex to balance all choices for equipment, technol- ogies and principles in the myriad of vari- ants on sale. In particular farmers fear that it is not easy-to-use, and they feel discour- aged by the enthusiasm of techno savvy front runners. Secondly, farmers fear that others, including the input suppliers, advisory services and off takers, gain more significant benefits from
▶ FUTURE FARMING | 25 May 2018
their investments than the farmers them- selves, for example in logistics optimisation, contracting and procurement. They even fear being pressured to reduce prices if they reduce costs through precision agriculture. Thirdly, there is a general feeling that preci- sion agriculture provides a lot of data about the farm and the productivity that can be used by others without the farmer’s explicit knowledge or consent.
PHOTO: RUUD PLOEG
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
