Despite the fact that agricultural robotics remains in its relative infancy, European legislation is falling behind technological development, an expert report suggests.
In the paper from a team at the eLaw Center for Law and Digital Technologies at Leiden University, the authors underlined that while legislation exists for large autonomous machines and vehicles, there is no equivalent framework for small agri-robots, which are expected to play a key role in ‘agriculture 4.0’.
Legislation “ill-suited” to agri-robots
The compatibility of automated aspects of farming with the EU’s Machinery Directive “is not always apparent,” they said, with problems including a stipulation that machines must not make unexpected movements seemingly not fitting with the general principle of automation.
A confusion around which standards within the directive apply to specific systems also exists among roboticists, they said, which leads to uncertainty when applying robotics to new fields such as agriculture.
“A key lesson learned from interacting with the agricultural community is that with risk analysis and the performance of tests and adjustments in the design phase, the key is developing reliable, safe machines within a regulatory context that is ill-suited and inaccurate,” they wrote in the journal Data and Policy.
Legal definitions of safety also provide another stumbling block, they said, with the use of artificial intelligence in robotics requiring greater consideration of issues such as cybersecurity and mental health than is currently present. Definitions will also need to be updated more rapidly than is usual to account for AI’s increasing capabilities.
Effort needed to overcome uncertainties
The authors also report findings from the LIAISON project, which was designed to better link robotic development and policymaking.
These included a survey among attendees at the European Robotics Forum, showing a lack of basic agreement over whether robots can be classed as ‘agricultural machinery’, with 37.5% of respondents considering them to fall outside such a definition. A further 27% of those consulted believed there is no link at all between robot development and the development of legislation and standards, with 66% believing a link does exist but is too complex and lacks transparency.
Further research carried out as part of the project revealed greater uncertainties over legal frameworks among smaller and younger companies in the robotics market, with the authors calling for their greater inclusion in decision-making, as well as other interested parties such as NGOs and user groups.
“Taking interactions in policymaking seriously will provide a solid basis for designing safer technologies, safeguarding users’ rights, and improving the overall safety and quality delivered by such systems,” they concluded.
