The United Nations has recently published a report entitled The State of Food and Agriculture 2022 in which it looks at how agriculture, on a global basis, is adopting new technologies.
New technology, however, is not just the latest electronic gadgetry but also encompasses, for many parts of the world, such basic moves as ditching hand tools in favour of the tractor.
I.T adoption takes time and money
While we in the developed world are constantly urged to buy into the latest digital system that promises to bring us ever greater riches, the report reminds us that throwing electronic solutions at those unprepared, or too undercapitalised, to make use of them is a waste of time and money.
While this conclusion may have been directed at developing countries, it might just as equally apply to any region in which there is a mixture of farm sizes, the smaller holdings will always lag behind the larger.
Expanding this idea to cover all items that might come under the digitalisation banner, it was noted that the mobile phone is leading the way in the adoption of digital technology in poorer countries.
This is referred to as unembodied technology, in that it exists separately to machines, whereas embodied technology is that which comes with the machines, such as ISOBUS-enabled tractors.
Nothing new in agriculture
This is little different to how farming has taken up digital technology in Ireland. The impact of the mobile phone on farming is probably underestimated for it would be the first computer that many farmers have brought into the business.
Yet we are constantly reminded that we need embodied computing to make farming more efficient, but how is that to happen if there is not the capital, expertise, or even desire to envelope the whole farming enterprise in a digital matrix?
Because of a lack of capital, other ways by which digitalisation can bring benefits to farmers have been developed in less wealthy countries and the report cites two examples.
Tangible benefits
The first is that of employing GPS and drones to map farms and establish boundaries, a task which has not always been undertaken accurately.
Having precise maps of an area owned or rented has allowed farmers to obtain bank loans.
This is something we take for granted here, yet GPS has, by many accounts, updated the assumptions of farmers on the size of their fields in Ireland; we may not be that far ahead after all.
Secondly, apps on a phone enable quicker and more precise identification of pests and diseases, allowing speedier intervention and so higher yields.
This has been spoken of in Ireland, but there is already a good deal of knowledge on prevalent challenges to yield, and they may not be so varied, which diminishes the role that such apps may play.
Affordability is vital
Neither of these two actions require huge investment in machinery or software systems, yet both point to the use of digital technology as becoming the norm; it is more a question of which bits of technology are the most relevant to a particular situation.
The report goes on to state that “digital solutions deserve the attention of policymakers and international organizations”. A typically glib statement from a large quango that can hardly be argued with, but it does add two useful caveats.
It notes that digital systems need to be affordable to as great a number of farmers as possible, and those farmers need to be able to implement the benefits that they bring.
This second point is equally as important as cost, for misunderstanding of the information that is being presented has led to further problems, including the over application of inputs.
Basic knowledge is still essential
Again, this is little different from much of what we see in more advanced agrarian societies, it underlines the need for agricultural education, empowering growers through the understanding of agriculture as a science to which digital systems can be applied.
Throwing smartphone apps and clever digital solutions at farmers may look good to the outsider, but unless they can be used intelligently they are just that, pretty items of virtue signalling.
While the report sets out with good intentions, it does dwell on the unembodied software and tends to overlook how digitalisation can support the operators of machines in making them more effective and efficient.
Alpaca farmers in Peru may well be grateful for news of the fibre supply chain, but it is likely that a GPS-enabled tractor applying fertiliser in Africa will be making greater use of digitalisation, yet the report pays only lip service to machine embodied technology.
Opportunity missed
This is its greatest flaw; it highlights the macro application of wonderful internet-based systems, yet tends to ignore the micro management of machines at ground level.
The authors even state that “motorized mechanisation still has the potential to improve agricultural productivity”. Including the word ‘potential’ suggests that they are not totally engaged with the tremendous advantages that mechanisation brings.
Indeed, elsewhere in the document itself, the dramatic improvement that mechanisation can make to the profitability of wheat growing in Ethiopia and Nepal is recounted, but then seemingly ignored in the gushing enthusiasm for macro digital applications in agriculture.
Before policymakers take this report to heart, they might solicit the views of sub Saharan farmers as to which would benefit them the most, a small tractor that efficiently applies inputs, or a tablet by which they can track the price of yams in Mombasa?
