Harmonizing Agroecology and Technology: A Future of Sustainable Farming
In an article published in 2018 titled “The Battle for the Future of Farming,” authors Michel Pimbert and Colin Anderson paint a seemingly dichotomous and dystopian picture of the future of agriculture. On one side, they see a high-tech, capital-driven model dominated by corporate and financial actors deploying a suite of advanced technologies to revolutionize farming.
On the other side, they highlight an agroecological model prioritizing local sustainability, biodiversity, and circularity driven by the people who interact with the land on a daily basis. However, this seemingly polar dichotomy can, and should, be bridged. It is possible to synthesize the merits of both high-tech and agroecology to create a model that harmonizes technology with sustainability, ensuring a prosperous and resilient future for global agriculture.
We can and must reconcile these opposing forces to create realistic and sustainable solutions where we all aren’t doing manual labor and instead create sustainable prosperity.
High technology, when applied responsibly and ethically, can provide significant solutions to the current crisis facing the global food system. The power of digitalization, robotics, and biotechnologies should not be underplayed or disregarded as merely the tools of exploitation. Indeed, they have the power to reduce farm worker exploitation in the world. We don’t need a future where low wage farm work is essential to feeding our world. These innovative technologies have the potential to work in tandem with agroecological principles, augmenting human effort, reducing waste, and optimizing resource use.
Precision farming, for example, harnesses data collection and analysis to optimize the use of water, pesticides, and fertilizers, mitigating environmental impact while increasing yield. This aspect of technology not only aligns with the principles of agroecology by minimizing the dependence on external inputs but also supports farmers in making informed, sustainable decisions about their land.
Similarly, the fusion of digital and biological domains can enhance agrobiodiversity, a cornerstone of agroecology. Advanced biotechnologies can enable the development of crops with increased resilience to pests and changing climate conditions, thereby reducing dependence on chemical pesticides and promoting biodiversity.
The aforementioned “New Vision for Agriculture” initiative by the World Economic Forum, supporting agricultural transitions with 12 transformative technologies, can coexist with agroecological models if transparency, fair governance, and open-source access are prioritized. This is not to say these goals are easy or inherent, but they are necessary.
Agroecology’s focus on local conditions and social aspects of farming can serve as a regulatory force, ensuring that technological advancements remain grounded in the realities of those who are farming the land. The principles of agroecology can guide the responsible development and deployment of new technologies, ensuring that they contribute to resilience and sustainability, rather than dependency and monopolization.
We need not discard the connectivity and advanced solutions that technology offers, nor should we ignore the inherent wisdom and sustainability of agroecology. Instead, we should promote a combined approach, leveraging the strengths of each to build a future of farming that is resilient, sustainable, and inclusive.
To avoid a future where technology supplants biodiversity or one where low-tech agroecology struggles to meet the challenges of a growing population and changing climate, we must foster collaboration. Through the combination of agroecology and responsible technological innovation, we can create an agricultural future that respects both the planet and the people who inhabit it.
Technological Lock-In
Technological lock-in refers to the phenomenon where an established technology dominates the market, not necessarily due to its superiority, but because the scale of its adoption creates a barrier for newer, potentially more efficient or sustainable technologies. In agriculture, technological lock-in has played a significant role in promoting monoculture farming practices over more diverse and sustainable farming methods.
A significant portion of agricultural research and development investment has been channeled into improving monoculture farming techniques, resulting in continuous advancements in technologies that support this farming model. This focus tends to crowd out investment and innovation in technologies that support alternative farming methods, such as polyculture or agroecology.
It is true that monoculture allows for standardization, simplifying processes like harvesting, post-harvest handling, and distribution. Technological systems built to cater to these standardized processes can struggle to accommodate more diverse farming systems. Technology has inherently and traditionally enforced standardization but as technology such as computer vision and advanced decision making models drastically improve, this paradigm is no longer inherent.
However, once a technology is deeply embedded in a system, a phenomenon known as path dependency can occur, where future decisions are heavily influenced by the established path. For monoculture farming, the investment in specific technologies, infrastructures, and knowledge creates a strong incentive to maintain the status quo.
While technological lock-in has facilitated the rise and dominance of monoculture farming, it’s important to recognize the environmental and socio-economic implications of this trend. Monoculture systems, while efficient in the short term, can lead to decreased soil fertility, increased vulnerability to pests and diseases, and reduced resilience to climate change.
In contrast, diversified farming systems, such as agroecology, can promote biodiversity, improve soil health, and build resilience to environmental changes. Breaking the cycle of technological lock-in requires concerted efforts in policy change, research and development focus, and support for farmers transitioning to more sustainable farming methods.
Opportunities for High Tech in Agroecology
1. Precision Farming: With the use of smart robots, precision farming becomes possible. Robots equipped with advanced sensors and machine learning algorithms can assess the needs of individual plants and apply specific treatments accordingly. This can reduce waste and ensure optimal growth conditions.
2. Weed and Pest Control: Robots can identify and remove weeds or administer targeted pest control, reducing the need for broad-spectrum pesticides. This not only lessens the impact on the environment, but also promotes the health and diversity of beneficial organisms within the farming ecosystem.
3. Optimized Harvesting: Robots can be programmed to recognize when specific crops are ready for harvesting, reducing crop loss and improving efficiency. For complex polyculture systems, robots can be designed to discern between different crops and execute harvest at optimal times.
4. Monitoring and Data Collection: Robots can continuously monitor and collect data on soil health, plant growth, and environmental conditions. This wealth of data could lead to actionable insights for farmers, helping them manage their polyculture system more effectively.
5. Resource Management: Advanced irrigation robots could monitor soil moisture levels and administer water only where and when it’s needed, leading to significant water savings.
6. Seeding and Transplanting: Robots could also help with the accurate and efficient planting of seeds, as well as the transplanting of seedlings. They could be programmed to maintain the specific spacing and depth requirements of each type of crop in the polyculture system.
By enabling precise and careful management of polyculture systems, robots could help maintain and even enhance biodiversity on farms, supporting healthier ecosystems and more resilient farming systems.
In Conclusion
We must prioritize open, democratic dialogue about the future of agriculture, where technology and agroecology are seen not as competing solutions, but as interconnected tools that can work together to create a sustainable and prosperous future for farming. Let us not think of this as an inherent opposition, but rather as an opportunity for co-evolution, where technology and agroecology thrive together in a balanced, sustainable agricultural system. We must battle technological lock-in, restrictive repair policies, and ensure open access to get there, but we must for the sake of our people and our planet.