New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

Research and Innovation (RRI). According to this approach, technology should be designed in line with societal needs. 788 Scholars have examined the application of RRI for technology in different sectors, including urban transport and medical applications, aiming to understand the benefits of an RRI approach. 789 As part of the four axes of RRI, anticipation aims at identifying the impacts of a certain technology, including the minimization of the negative impacts. 790 In the case of digital agriculture, anticipation could encompass all kinds of impacts: “on-farm, across farming landscapes, throughout the food chain, as well as considering effects on rural communities and publics as a whole”. 791 Another element of RRI is inclusion, which encompasses the engagement of different actors in the innovation process. 792 Moreover, the axis of reflexivity entails that researchers need to be aware of their preconceived ideas and their motivations, and actively engage in an interaction with other actors. Reflexivity is essentially the awareness that a novel technology may bring opportunities, but it could also create or worsen existent problems. 793 Lastly, responsiveness entails the shift in the trajectory of the research/innovation as a response to the inputs received through the interaction with the different actors. 794 3. Farmers’ participation in RRI in digital agriculture As it was demonstrated, RRI encompasses anticipation, which as was highlighted above is part of the obligations incumbent upon states under the human right to science. As part of the inclusion element of RRI, regarding digital agriculture, a recent study categorized the stakeholders as micro-level, meso-level and macro-level. Farmers are part of the first category, and according to the writers of the study, even though they are very often referred to as catalytical for digital agriculture development and adoption, in practice they receive much less attention. 795 Thus, a model built on participation and knowledge sharing would be apt to agricultural innovation. 796 788 Gremmen B, Blok V and Bovenkerk B, ‘Responsible Innovation for Life: Five Challenges Agriculture Offers for Responsible Innovation in Agriculture and Food, and the Necessity of an Ethics of Innovation’ (2019) 32 Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 673, p. 674. 789 Li W et al, ‘The Making of Responsible Innovation and Technology: An Overview and Framework’ (2023) 6 Smart Cities 1996, pp. 1997-99. 790 Jakku E et al. ‘Reflecting on Opportunities and Challenges Regarding Implementation of Responsible Digital Agri-Technology Innovation’ (2022) 62 Sociologia Ruralis 363, p. 370. 791 Rose DC and Chilvers J, ‘Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming’ (2018) 2 Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 1, p. 3. 792 Stilgoe J, Owen R and Macnaghten P, ‘Developing a framework for responsible innovation’ (2013) 42(9) Research Policy 1568. 793 Jakku E et al (n 790), p. 375. 794 Henchion MM et al, ‘Developing “Smart” Dairy Farming Responsive to Farmers and Consumer-Citizens: A Review’ (2022) 12 Animals 1, p. 4. 795 Ebrahimi HP, Schillo RS and Bronson K, ‘Systematic Stakeholder Inclusion in Digital Agriculture: A Framework and Application to Canada’ (2021) 13 Sustainability 1, p. 8. 796 Molina N et al, ‘Farmers’ Participation in Operational Groups to Foster Innovation in the Agricultural Sector: An Italian Case Study’ (2021) 13 Sustainability 1, p. 1.

191