All
 
|
 
 


EU Agricultural Digitalization Decalogue
 
Title (other)Декалог аграрной цифровизации ЕС
PIIS207987840015224-5-1
DOI10.18254/S207987840015224-5
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Natalia Kondrat’eva 
Affiliation:
Institute of Europe RAS
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Institute of World Civilizations
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameISTORIYA
Edition
Abstract

The aim of the article is to summarize the ideological foundations and to characterize the current stage of agricultural digitalization in the EU. The author identifies the framework documents and areas of discussion on the development of the digital strategy of the European Union in the agricultural sector. Taking into account the successful practice and opinions of the competent centers, an idea was formed about the principles and ten areas that are covered by supranational assistance, which form a kind of Decalogue of agricultural digitalization. The author notes that the regulation of digital transformation in agriculture is due not so much to the need to increase the economic efficiency of business processes, but rather to the intention to facilitate the control of their compliance with the criteria of climate neutrality and inclusiveness. The digitalization strategy of the Common agricultural policy (CAP) brings its goals closer to those of sustainable development. The ongoing crisis in Europe and the world caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic gives the European Commission a formal reason to step up digital transformation in agriculture. Relying on legal and investment-based regulatory tools, it uses tactics to force progress in the name of improving the sustainability of agriculture in the face of probable shocks.

Abstract (other)В статье обобщены идейные основы и дана характеристика нынешнего этапа аграрной цифровизации в ЕС. Выявлены рамочные документы и направления дискуссии по вопросам развития цифровой стратегии Европейского союза в аграрной сфере. Автор замечает, что регулирование цифровых преобразований в сельском хозяйстве обусловлено не столько необходимостью повысить экономическую эффективность бизнес-процессов, сколько намерением облегчить контроль соответствия их критериям климатической нейтральности и инклюзивности. Стратегия цифровизации Общей сельскохозяйственной политики (ОСХП) сближает ее цели с целями устойчивого развития. С учетом успешной практики и мнений центров компетенции сформировано представление о принципах и десяти сферах, на которые распространено наднациональное содействие, составляющих своеобразный декалог аграрной цифровизации. Не утихающий в Европе и мире кризис, вызванный пандемией коронавируса COVID-19, дает Европейской комиссии формальный повод для активизации цифровых преобразований в сельском хозяйстве. С опорой на правовые и инвестиционные инструменты регулирования она применяет тактику принуждения к прогрессу во имя повышения устойчивости сельского хозяйства перед лицом вероятных потрясений
KeywordsDigital strategy, Common agricultural policy, supranational regulation, COVID-19 pandemic, sustainable development, global climate change
Keywords list (other)Цифровая стратегия, Общая сельскохозяйственная политика, наднациональное регулирование, пандемия COVID-19, устойчивое развитие, глобальные изменения климата
AcknowledgmentThis article is a translation of: Кондратьева Н. Б. Декалог аграрной цифровизации ЕС // Общественные науки и современность. 2021. № 1. C. 73—84. DOI: 10.31857/S086904990013995-6
Received08.03.2021
Publication date31.03.2021
Number of characters32000
Cite     Download pdf

Table of contents

Methodology
Digital Agenda of the CAP
The strategy of progress enforcement
Conclusions
1 Global climate change and the development of digital technologies are the key factors which today determine the supranational intervention in the agricultural economy of the EU. Even though both of them create an existential risk for the European agriculture they also encourage competition in the agricultural market and the industry’s progress. Unlike climate change, digital transformation is already manageable; the latter is viewed by supranational institutions as a tool to control the former.
2 The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the importance of digital skills for working in the conditions of restrictions on the movement of people and it gave momentum to transformations and to the inclusion of digital priorities in the sectoral activities of the EU. In particular, the pandemic highlighted the risks of disrupting seasonal work in agriculture [Potemkina, 2020] and, at the same time, it strengthened the society's agreement with the remote work mode and revealed the need for digitalization in many areas of rural life.
3 For example, a special analytical note by the OECD [Policy Implications…, 2020], published in June 2020 and dedicated to the consequences of the pandemic for rural development offers a new vision of rural areas as a safer place of residence, which has become a temporary refuge for urban dwellers. The document noted not only a shortage of medical institutions and cultural facilities, but also underdevelopment in the availability of water, electricity and gas supply, sewer and wired telecommunication systems, which certainly hindered the ability of rural areas to replace urban environment. However, in those rural areas where the level of digital infrastructure was sufficient, it made up for the lack of other amenities.
4 The crisis that prompted the public discussion is accelerating the achievement of consensus on framework, legislative and investment initiatives in the field of agrarian digitalization; The European Commission (EC) is effectively getting carte blanche for a sustainable digital agenda.
5 This study examines the problems of digital transformation in agriculture. In the first part its ideological foundations and its challenges are identified, in the second part the progress of appropriate reforms within the EU's competence is traced. The author aims to record the fact of the creation of sustainable digital agriculture as a priority issue of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy under the influence of the respective academic field. The research methods used to achieve the goal include the analysis of official reports, the study of strategic attitudes and the search for practical examples of activities.
6

Methodology

 

The analysis is based on the concept of sustainable development and the new institutional economic theory. Being developed since the 1970s, they have been thoroughly researched and provide guidance in specific practical areas. Nowadays the concept of sustainable development offers a basis for radical transformations in the economy which minimize environmental damage (though often at a high cost) and which in the long term will demonstrate their economic efficiency [Gizatullin, Troitsky; Mingaleva; Kukushkina].
7 One of the research fields within this concept is “green economy” which focuses on increasing the role of renewable energy sources and environmentally friendly technologies in the economic development and predicts the depreciation of assets of the owners of hydrocarbon resources [Porfiryev, 2012, 2016]. In the past decade another research field has been growing with the same dynamics — the “digital economy” which studies the processes of the creation and the dissemination of digital technologies [Gokhberg, Leksin]. In a number of works the role of digital technologies in the proliferation of green technologies is substantiated. Moreover, green and digital economies are seen together as a driving force and a sign of the countries' transition to a new technological order. The concept of “sustainable digital economy” is proposed, which develops the idea of a synergistic effect of connecting two economies [Perelet; IDDRI; Scharlemann]. A separate category includes works that study its challenges [Lebedeva]. Such studies serve as a rationale for the need to regulate and encourage a sustainable digital economy [Khudyakova]. The works within the framework of the new institutional economic theory help to evaluate the approach used by the supranational institutions of the EU for the implementation of the strategic guidelines [Zuev; Kaveshnikov; Strezhneva, Prokhorenko].
8 The research literature offers a view that the benefits of digitalization should be measured beyond the traditional indicators of trade growth and economic efficiency. An important criterion is public welfare. It is this emphasis that inspires the EU’s Digital Strategy.
9 Let us elaborate on that. The digital economy does not live up to expectations: instead of increasing profits by reducing costs of manual labour, funds, communications, transport, it increases expenses for the payment of qualified personnel, purchase of technology and equipment. Back in the late 1980s, American economist R. Solow, a Nobel laureate wrote: “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics”1. A leading Russian economist S. Afontsev noted the reduction in the contribution of world trade to GDP (at the height of its digitalization, — N.K.'s note) [Afontsev, 2019]. The paradoxes of digitalization force us to reformulate its assessment. 1. Robert Solow, “We’d better watch out”, New York Times Book Review, July 12, 1987. P. 36.

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 980

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Afontsev S. (2019) Novye tendencii v razvitii mirovoj ekonomiki. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63, № 5, rr. 36—46. DOI: https:doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-5-36-46.
2. Afontsev S. (2019) New Trends in Global Economy. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63, № 5, rr. 36—46. DOI: https:doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-5-36-46.
3. Potemkina O. (2020) Evropejskij sojuz: sezonnye rabochie v uslovijah pandemii. Nauchno-analiticheskij vestnik IE RAN [Scientific and Analytical Herald of the IE RAS]. № 5, rr. 45—51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran520204551. 
4. Potemkina O. (2020) European Union: Seasonal Workers under COVID-19 Pandemic. Nauchno-analiticheskij vestnik IE RAN [Scientific and Analytical Herald of the IE RAS]. № 5, rr. 45—51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran520204551. 
5. Digital technologies in agriculture and rural areas. Briefing paper. 2019. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 18 p.
6. Gizatullin H.N., Troickij V.A. (1998) Koncepciya ustojchivogo razvitiya: novaya social'no-ekonomicheskaya paradigma. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', № 5, p. 124—130.
7. Gizatullin H.N., Troickij V.A. (1998) The Concept of Sustainable Development: a New Socio-Economic Paradigm. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', № 5, p. 124—130.
8. Mingaleva ZH. A. (2017) Idei ustojchivogo razvitiya: «yabloko razdora» ili platforma dlya ob"edineniya. Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 6. Ekonomika, № 6, s. 23—41.
9. Mingaleva ZH. A. (2017) Ideas for sustainable development: "bone of contention" or platform for unification. Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 6. Ekonomika, № 6, s. 23—41.
10. Kukushkina A.V. (2017) Koncepciya ustojchivogo razvitiya (mezhdunarodno-pravovye aspekty). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo, № 23, p. 29—39.
11. Kukushkina A.V. (2017) The Concept of Sustainable Development (International Legal Aspects). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo, № 23, p. 29—39.
12. Gohberg L.M. (red.) (2019) CHto takoe cifrovaya ekonomika? Trendy, kompetencii, izmerenie. M.: Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki. 82 p.
13. Gohberg L.M. (red.) (2019) What is Digital Economy? Trends, Competences, measurement M.: Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki. 82 p.
14. Leksin V.N. Sintez obshhestva potreblenija i informacionnogo obshhestva. Kontury global'nyh transformacij: politika, jekonomika, pravo . 2020;13(2):195—211.
15. Leksin V.N. Synthesis of Consumer Society and Information Society. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2020;13(2):195—211.
16. Porfir'ev B.N. (2012) “Zelenaya” ekonomika: obshchemirovye tendencii razvitiya i perspektivy. Vestnik RAN, №4, s. 323—344.
17. Porfir'ev B.N. (2012) "Green" Economy: Global Development Trends and Prospects. Vestnik RAN, №4, s. 323—344.
18. Porfir’ev B. (2016) “Zelenye” tendencii v mirovoj finansovoj sisteme. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 60, No 9, p. 5—16.
19. Porfir’ev B. (2016) Green Trends in the Global Financial System. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 60, No 9, p. 5—16.
20. Perelet R.A. (2018) Ekologicheskie aspekty cifrovoj ekonomiki. Mir novoj ekonomiki, 12(4), s. 39—45.
21. Perelet R.A. (2018) Environmental Aspects of the Digital Economy. Mir novoj ekonomiki, 12(4), s. 39—45.
22. Lebedeva L. (2019) Cifrovaja transformacija v social'no-trudovoj sfere: novye vyzovy i vozmozhnosti. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 63, No 12, p. 42—49.
23. Lebedeva L. (2019) Digital Transformation in the Socio-Labor Sphere: New Challenges and Opportunities. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 63, No 12, p. 42—49.
24. Khudyakova L. (2019) Sozdanie sistemy ustojchivogo finansirovanija v Evropejskom sojuze. Mirovaja ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija. vol. 63, No 7, p. 16—22.
25. Khudyakova L. (2019) Launching a Sustainable Financial System in the European Union. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 63, No 7, p. 16—22.
26. Zuev V.N. (2010) Nadnacional'nyj mekhanizm v sisteme global'nogo i regional'nogo regulirovaniya. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij, № 4 (30), p. 10—20.
27. Zuev V.N. (2010) Supranational mechanism in the system of global and regional regulation. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij, № 4 (30), p. 10—20.
28. Kaveshnikov N. (2015) Metody upravlenija v Evropejskom sojuze. Mirovaja jekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, No 8, p. 49—60.
29. Kaveshnikov N. (2015) Methods of Governance in the European Union. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, No 8, p. 49—60.
30. Strezhneva M.V., Prohorenko I.L. (2013) Upravlenie ekonomikoj v Evropejskom sojuze: Institucional'nye i politicheskie aspekty. Moscow, IMEMO RAN. 155 p.
31. Strezhneva Marina, Prokhorenko Irina (2013) Economic Governance in the European Union: Institutional and Political Issues. Moscow, IMEMO RAN. 155 p.
32. IDDRI, FING, WWF France, GreenIT.fr (2018). White Paper Digital Technology and Environment. 31 p.
33. Scharlemann, J.P.W., Brock, R.C., Balfour, N. et al. (2020) Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages. Sustain Sci 15, p. 1573–1584.
34. Jackson T. (2009) Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy. Sustainable Development Commission. 134 p. URL: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/prosperity_without_growth_report.pdf  (accessed: 10.11.2020).
35. Stiglitz J. E. (2019) The Economy We Need, Project Syndicateyu May 3. URL: https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/the-economy-we-need-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2019-05?barrier=accesspaylog  (accessed: 10.11.2020).
36. Policy Implications of Coronavirus Crisis for Rural Development. 16 June. OECD 2020. 22 p.
37. Status of Digital Agriculture in 18 countries of Europe and Central Asia (2020) Geneva: FAO. 82 p.
38. Modernising and simplifying the CAP. Background Document. Socio-Economic challenges facing EU agriculture and rural areas. Brussels: European Commission. 36 p.
39. Katarzyna Kosior (2019) Towards a New Data Economy for EU Agriculture Studia Europejskie-Studies in European Affairs. December, rr. 91—107. DOI: 1033067/SE.4.2019.6.
40. Renda, A. (2019), Artificial Intelligence: Ethics, Governance and Policy Challenges, CEPS Task Force Report. Brussels: CEPS, February. 145 p.
41. Renda A., Reynolds N., Laurer M., Cohen G. (2019) Digitising Agrifood: Pathways and Challenges. Brussels: CEPS, BCFN. 140 p.
42. Digital Economy and Society Index. Thematic chapters. Brussels, 2020. 124 p.
43. IoT and digital technologies for monitoring of the new CAP. AIOTI WG06 – Smart Farming and Food Security. May, 2019. 29 p.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up