Digital Agriculture and Inclusivity: Empowering Marginal

By Ishaka Maharaj , Graduate Student, University of Guelph

The digital transformation of agriculture, often referred to as “Agriculture 4.0,” is reshaping how food is produced, managed, and distributed. This revolution, marked by the introduction of precision agriculture, digital platforms, and AI-driven technologies, holds immense promise for improving productivity and food security. However, there are growing concerns that these advancements may inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities, particularly for smallholders and marginalized communities in the Global South.

Digital agriculture is primarily driven by private firms, including global software companies and start-ups, which raises concerns about corporate control and the digital divide between large and small farms. Birner et al. (2021) note that although digital agriculture offers the potential for environmental sustainability and increased efficiency, it may also concentrate power among larger agribusinesses, leaving smaller players vulnerable to exclusion. These technologies can create barriers to access for smallholders, particularly in rural areas with limited infrastructure and digital literacy, leading to further marginalization of those who are already on the fringes of the agricultural sector¹.

As digital technologies proliferate, scholars like Ingram et al. (2023) argue that the directionality of these innovations needs careful consideration to avoid reinforcing industrialized farming models that favor corporate interests over smallholder needs². Without intervention, the adoption of precision agriculture and other digital tools could exacerbate power imbalances and reduce the autonomy of smallholders.

However, digital literacy and inclusion efforts offer a pathway to mitigate these risks. Digital literacy programs, particularly those embedded within local communities, can empower smallholders to take part in the digital transformation, allowing them to gain control over their data and decisions. Agricultural extension services (AES), as suggested by Chowdhury & Gow. (2024), are pivotal in supporting these efforts by providing training that aligns with the priorities of marginalized groups³. Through AES initiatives, smallholders can enhance their digital self-determination, giving them the skills to navigate the digital landscape and make informed decisions about technology adoption.

Moreover, community-driven ICT models, like the Keewaytinook Okimakanak (KO) approach in First Nations communities, highlight the importance of locally led digital transformations. This model, which integrates traditional knowledge with digital platforms, empowers communities to manage their resources and services, demonstrating how local leadership can guide effective digital transitions⁴. The KO model’s success underscores the potential for similar approaches in agricultural settings, where smallholders and rural communities can lead the way in adopting technologies that suit their unique needs and circumstances.

Digital agriculture offers tremendous potential for increasing productivity and enhancing sustainability. Still, without deliberate efforts to include marginalized voices, the sector risks deepening social and economic inequalities. By fostering digital literacy, supporting community-based ICT initiatives, and ensuring that smallholders have access to the tools and training they need, it is possible to bridge the digital divide. Agricultural extension services and local leadership will be crucial in ensuring that the benefits of Agriculture 4.0 are shared equitably across all segments of the farming population, creating a more inclusive and sustainable future.

References:

  1. Birner, R., Daum, T., & Pray, C. (2021). Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply‐side trends, players and challenges. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(4), 1260–1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13145
  2. Ingram, J., & Maye, D. (2023). “How can we?” the need to direct research in digital agriculture towards capacities. Journal of Rural Studies, 100, 103003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.03.011
  3. Chowdhury, A., & Gow, G. A. (2024). Digital Communication for Agricultural and Rural Development. Taylor & Francis.
  4. Gurstein, M., Beaton, B., & Sherlock, K. (2009). A Community Informatics Model for e-Services in First Nations Communities: The K-Net Approach to Water Treatment in Northern Ontario. The Journal of Community Informatics, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v5i2.2450

 

1 Comment

Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.

Rubaba Mohammedreply
January 25, 2025 at 4:35 pm

This is very true as most of these small holder farmers and rural folks who farm to feed their families do not even have an idea what agriculture 4.0 is all about.

Leave a reply