Search

Smart farming increasingly depends on data generated by sensors, machinery, farm management systems, remote monitoring tools, digital platforms, and decision-support applications. These data flows support agronomic decision-making, resource efficiency, traceability, automation, advisory services, and supply-chain coordination. As farm operations become more data-intensive, farm data becomes a strategic resource rather than a neutral technical by-product. Farm data creates governance challenges because its production, interpretation, exchange, and reuse are distributed across multiple actors and technical systems. Farmers, technology providers, platform operators, agribusiness firms, advisors, researchers, regulators, and supply-chain actors may each hold different forms of access, control, and responsibility. This creates ambiguity around ownership claims, interoperability obligations, privacy safeguards, consent practices, accountability pathways, and farmer agency. This article develops a layered conceptual framework for farm data governance in smart farming ecosystems. The framework conceptualizes farm data governance as an interaction among data production, technical interoperability, ownership and control, privacy and consent, accountability mechanisms, platform governance, institutional oversight, and farmer agency. It argues that these layers must be analysed together because weaknesses in one layer can undermine governance capacity across the ecosystem. The article synthesizes scholarship on digital agriculture, smart farming, data ownership, interoperability, privacy, accountability, platform governance, farmer agency, and responsible innovation. Rather than treating farm data governance as a purely legal or technical matter, it develops a socio-technical model of how data flows, governance responsibilities, and institutional safeguards interact. This approach supports a more integrated understanding of responsible data governance in smart farming. The proposed framework explains how farm data governance can be organized across technical, organizational, legal, ethical, platform, and institutional layers. It highlights the need for interoperable systems, transparent contracts, meaningful consent, privacy-sensitive data practices, accountable platforms, institutional oversight, and farmer participation. The article contributes a farmer-centered governance model for smart farming ecosystems that are data-driven, trustworthy, and accountable.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in precision agriculture through sensing, remote observation, predictive modelling, automated classification, and decision-support applications. Technical performance alone, however, is insufficient for determining whether these systems are responsibly designed or appropriately used. This article proposes an original governance framework that connects agricultural context definition, farm-data governance, transparency, explainability, accountability, sustainability assessment, farmer participation, human oversight, risk safeguards, implementation-readiness review, monitoring, and adaptive feedback. The framework treats transparency as a requirement for documenting data provenance, data quality, model assumptions, system limitations, and decision pathways, while explainability is positioned as a task-specific means of supporting interpretation rather than proof of model validity. Accountability is structured through explicit allocation of responsibilities among developers, platform providers, data stewards, advisors, farmers, and oversight actors. Environmental, social, and economic sustainability are assessed alongside digital inclusion, usability, local relevance, farmer autonomy, and trust-building conditions. The framework also addresses algorithmic opacity, bias, model drift, poor local calibration, data misuse, cybersecurity, automation dependence, accountability gaps, and implementation overclaiming. Its principal contribution is a layered, adaptive governance model for responsible agricultural decision support. The framework supports governance planning and research design but does not establish empirical validity, legal compliance, policy acceptance, farmer approval, sustainability performance, trust, certification, or deployment readiness.

Artificial intelligence is becoming embedded in precision agriculture through data-intensive monitoring, predictive models, digital platforms, advisory systems, robotics, and automated machinery. These arrangements complicate accountability because consequential outputs may result from interactions among data providers, model developers, platform operators, advisors, machinery manufacturers, system integrators, service providers, and farm operators rather than from a single actor or technical component. This article proposes a conceptual accountability framework for examining AI liability issues across agricultural AI systems without treating accountability mapping as a substitute for legal interpretation. The framework begins with agricultural use-case definition and stakeholder-role mapping, then examines data-level duties concerning quality, provenance, access, control, privacy, cybersecurity, and governance. It further maps model-level responsibilities for documentation, validation, robustness, bias assessment, explainability, uncertainty communication, and drift monitoring. Platform and advisory layers are addressed through governance, interface design, monitoring, escalation, human review, professional interpretation, and farmer-autonomy requirements. Machinery, automation, and operational risks are incorporated through control-system responsibilities, sensor-to-actuator traceability, supervisory control, fail-safe design, maintenance, incident reporting, and operational boundaries. The framework also identifies liability gaps created by fragmented evidence, unclear validation ownership, platform ambiguity, ineffective human oversight, and incomplete traceability. Its contribution is a structured method for clarifying responsibility pathways, evidence needs, decision boundaries, and governance gaps across interconnected agricultural AI layers. The framework is conceptual and does not determine legal liability, establish compliance, certify safety, allocate blame, or demonstrate deployment readiness.