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

adopt) digital agriculture technologies. For example, it was found that in Switzerland the interest in digital agriculture so far has been limited, due to the small size of the farms and the chasm between technology and the local context. 807 However, a challenge that relates to the local context, is the difficulty in scalability. Will the technology which has been developed in accordance with the needs of a small group of participants be able to be scaled and appeal to users worldwide? It has been argued that the engagement of a diverse group of participants would assist in this regard. It could allow to forecast modifications from the beginning of the design process, which could prove helpful for the scalability of the product. 808 The local context is also of paramount importance in the context of the participatory process. For example, a study found that women in Kenya were reluctant to share their opinion in a group where the majority was male participants. 809 Thus, alternative forms of engagement that would encourage the participation of all stakeholders should be part of the participatory process. Some modes of current inclusion of farmers in research projects range include “stakeholder groups; farmer technology groups; operational groups; knowledge transfer groups; design thinking; co-creation; on-farm pilot studies; demonstration farms; farm open days; farmer conferences”. 810 Another process that has been used by agricultural providers has been the use of living labs. Living labs is a type of inclusive participation that is immersive, meaning that the users of the technology are involved in testing and co-developing technology in cooperation with researchers, practitioners, and other partners in a real life environment. 811 Nevertheless, it needs to be ascertained that the living lab is not used only for commercial purposes such as introducing the technology to the end user/customer but for actually achieving societal goals “such as improving democratic participation or addressing ethical concerns related to new technologies”. 812 Thus, it is important to note that there are different models of farmer participation and engagement, in terms of the level of participation, the stage of participation and the location of where this interaction takes place. For example, in terms of the stage when farmers get involved, it could be during the design process, the testing process or the diffusion process. 813 It is also worth mentioning that if the farmers have played an active role in the design and development of the technology, they would be more likely to also 807 Forney J and Dwiartama A, ‘The Project, the Everyday, and Reflexivity in Sociotechnical Agri-Food Assemblages: Proposing a Conceptual Model of Digitalisation’ (2023) 40 Agriculture and Human Values 441, p. 447. 808 Steinke J et al, ‘Participatory Design of Digital Innovation in Agricultural Research-for-Development: Insights from Practice’ (2022) 195 Agricultural Systems 1, p. 5. 809 Ibid., p. 7. 810 Regan Á, ‘Exploring the Readiness of Publicly Funded Researchers to Practice Responsible Research and Innovation in Digital Agriculture’ (2021) 8 Journal of Responsible Innovation 28, p. 38. 811 Berberi A et al, ‘Enablers, Barriers, and Future Considerations for Living Lab Effectiveness in Environmental and Agricultural Sustainability Transitions: A Review of Studies Evaluating Living Labs’ (2023) 1 Local Environment 1, pp. 1–2. 812 Gardezi M et al (n 800), pp. 239–240. 813 Jackson-Smith D and Veisi H (n 784), p. 164.

193