In the Netherlands, the agricultural landscape is on the cusp of a technological revolution, with field robots increasingly becoming a familiar sight. These autonomous machines, designed to perform tasks such as sowing, weeding, and mowing, are not just a futuristic concept; they are already operational in various forms. Notable examples include the Farmdroid FD20, which can autonomously sow and weed crops like sugar beets and onions, and the Lely Exos, a mowing and feeding robot used in dairy farming. The AgBot T2, an autonomous traction robot, is set to be tested on an arable farm under the NPPL programme in 2025, while a standard tractor equipped with the iQuus retrofit kit will tour various farms this year. These advancements raise important questions about safety and liability, as the use of unmanned field robots becomes more prevalent.
The key question is whether these unmanned field robots are permitted in open fields and if the safety measures in place are sufficient. Two opposing views have emerged in practice. One perspective suggests that since there are no specific regulations for field robots, their use is merely tolerated as long as they do not enter public roads. The other view asserts that the lack of specific regulations means anything goes. However, the reality is more nuanced. Field robots are indeed permitted in agricultural fields, and regulations are in place to ensure their safe operation.
The most crucial safety features of a field robot are its digital geofence and obstacle detection systems. The geofence uses RTK GPS to map the field and all fixed objects, ensuring the robot operates within a predefined area. Obstacle detection systems, which include sensors, cameras, and radar-like LiDAR, help the robot stop or slow down when encountering unexpected obstacles. However, these systems can sometimes be overly sensitive. During an iQuus demonstration tour in 2024, a tractor stopped for an unusually tall blade of grass, highlighting the need for fine-tuning these systems to prevent unnecessary interruptions.
Safety regulations also require that only the operator is allowed in the field where the robot is working. This individual must understand the system and have a remote control with an emergency stop. Simply placing “no entry” signs is not sufficient to justify reducing machine safety standards. The European Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, which will become the European Machinery Regulation in 2027, applies to field robots just as it does to other machinery. Manufacturers must provide a CE marking and a detailed user manual to demonstrate safe operation. The CE mark signifies compliance with European safety, health, and environmental protection standards, and is mandatory for specific product categories sold in the EU, regardless of where they are manufactured.
Coen van Gulijk, a safety scientist at the Dutch research institute TNO, warns against purchasing uncertified products. “If something goes wrong and the certification is inadequate, it leads to serious issues,” he says. While CE certification ensures compliance with safety regulations, absolute safety is unattainable. “No machine is 100% safe,” says Erik Pekkeriet, program manager for Vision & Robotics at Wageningen University & Research. “Take a chainsaw, for example. It has a two-handed operation system and a chain brake, and users are required to wear gloves, chainsaw pants, and safety glasses. These measures minimize risk but do not eliminate it.”
A critical liability condition is that the CE marking applies only to the machine in its original state. If a user modifies the machine, they assume the role of manufacturer and become responsible for CE certification. Farmers often customize machinery to meet their needs, but re-certification is rare. This issue becomes more complex for highly sophisticated machines with greater safety risks, especially emerging technologies like field robots. “Ensuring safety and liability is crucial,” says Luco Hetebrij, mechanical engineer at GPX Solutions. “A single accident could damage the reputation of this emerging industry.” GPX Solutions, which produces and supplies iQuus Autonomy, addresses this by having an external party inspect the system post-installation, re-certifying the entire setup.
The safety documentation behind a field robot’s CE certification is far more extensive than that of simpler machinery. Pieter Rooijakkers, product trainer at AgXeed, manufacturer of the AgBot, states, “For our AgBot, the documentation is a thick manual detailing safe operation.” Rooijakkers acknowledges the importance of safety and reliability in the early adoption phase of autonomous field robots. “ISO standards ensure compliance with safety guidelines. Safety is paramount. Every component contributes to maintaining a secure work environment and fostering trust among farmers. By providing a safe working environment, farmers can confidently delegate tasks to the AgBot, allowing them to focus on other work while the robot performs its duties safely.”