المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

This is good idea to enable exchange of information and transfer of Technology. It needs all member country efforts for implementation.

Advantages :

1. emphasize all transfers quick action and bias will be choosen for transfer and development  from the farmers end/ fied level

2. More room is needed in the implementation of technology as its need sofessticated equipment besides the computer and internet 

3. Education of farmer at farm level become hard ship as this is not focussed for small farmeers.

4. Particularly to refer LDC, developing countries have large size of  farmers which needs effortable cost / prices on thiss technology..

constrainsts:

a. In India work force of arround 67% on Agriculture ( as per world Bank). This is a large population works as lively hood, to be suited our digital technology..

b. Other developing countries too similar problem

c. unless market oriented this is hard to implement since the farmers ultimate aim to obtain maximum returns/  price to their productivity. 

d. At the same time consumer price index should be stable one. else political & governance factor impacts .

e. Due to complexicity problems- an essential plan is required to digitalize at an International level  and also at naational level.

Good Idea ---- but staandards, program of planning is more important. Decession making on what  priorites to be considered.

by prof. KB NaRayana,

(1) What are the potential entry points for government to address challenges and foster the development of digital agriculture?

Developing policies which can promote Open Data for Agriculture at all levels by followith the FAIR Principal.

(2) How can the establishment of the Digital Council address the numerous barriers to adoption of these technologies?

The digital council will help to advocate, lobby and influence policy formulation at International, Reginal, National and Local level

(3) Do you think that the roles identified for the Digital Council are suitable for facing the agrifood systems challenges outlined above?

Partly yes but there is a need to critically look at the diverse challenges faced by smallholder farmers in the Global South and the central government budget allocations to the Agriculture sector. This will give you a clear picture.

English translation below

Quels sont les points d'entrée potentiels qui permettraient aux gouvernements de relever les défis et de favoriser le développement de l'agriculture numérique?

La question est complexe. Mais le développement de l’agriculture numérique nécessite la mise en place graduelle d’un vaste écosystème d’innovation sur la base d’acteurs (aspects gouvernance et compétences, capacité, formation), de techniques et de technologies agricoles ou numériques (Capteurs, Equipements agricoles et non agricoles porteurs de ces capteurs, Smartphones et autres matériels communicants intégrateurs de capteurs et services), d’infrastructures (Réseaux et Infrastructures de communication pour échanger des données, communiquer, Internet), la conception de Services informationnels et de plateformes «d’intelligence agronomique et économique », basés sur des données et modèles – des algorithmes pour l’aide à la décision (rôle important de la recherche) dans la production et la commercialisation, et mettant en relation des Acteurs, Organisations (associations de producteurs), intégrant le numérique dans leurs Stratégies et Politiques d’entreprise et d’action collective ou individuelle. Cet écosystème est plus facile à mettre en place dans un environnement favorable quand il existe un Modèle sociétal, un Environnement sectoriel et un Contexte politique et économique de « l’économie numérique ». C’est donc bien le système d’innovation dans son ensemble qui doit être réfléchi, dont les différentes composantes sont plus ou moins solides dans certains pays et contextes.

Les centres de compétences sont particulièrement utiles au développement de ce système d’innovation (centres de recherche qui travaillent sur le domaine de l’agriculture numérique) pour des travaux de recherche en interdisciplinarité, mêlant sciences du numérique et sciences agronomiques ou sociales. Ce niveau de collaboration entre ces domaines disciplinaires n’est pas encore en place partout, voir par exemple en France https://www.hdigitag.fr/fr/.

Au-delà de ces aspects génériques se greffent des difficultés propres aux pays en développement, comme la fracture numérique, mais aussi la fracture juridique (manque de cadre légale déontologique et éthique sur l’usage des données) qui remet en cause la confiance et la vision sur les bénéficiaires réels de telles méthodes.

Voir https://spore.cta.int/fr/opinions/article/eviter-une-valorisation-technologique-et-economique-asymetrique-des-big-data-sid0726bd8f1-b891-47fc-8993-87861c5806dd

Comment la création du Conseil numérique peut-elle contribuer à lever les nombreux obstacles à l'adoption de ces technologies??

L’inclusivité et la diversité des acteurs me semble être le facteur le plus important car garant de la diversité des points de vue dans le respect de l’éthique et d’une utilité avérée de la mise en place de solutions numériques (engagement dans les ODD notamment) .

Pensez-vous que les rôles assignés au Conseil numérique sont appropriés pour faire face aux défis des systèmes alimentaires décrits ci-dessus?

Le schéma proposé semble adapté, mais le pôle de connaissance doit mieux intégrer les sciences sociales car les questions de co design, de transition et d’adoption sont étudiés par ces disciplines.

Quelle structure de gouvernance convient-il mettre en place pour que le Conseil puisse remplir sa mission??

La mise en place d’une alliance globale et de collèges thématiques (dont un collège de la recherche et de l’innovation) avec des groupes de travail opérationnels devant livrer des livrables clairs  paraitrait adaptée

What are the potential entry points for government to address challenges and foster the development of digital agriculture?

This is a complex issue. However, the development of digital agriculture requires the gradual implementation of a broad ecosystem of innovation based on stakeholders (governance and skills, capacity, training), agricultural or digital techniques and technologies (sensors, agricultural and non-agricultural equipment carrying these sensors, smartphones and other smart devices integrating sensors and services), infrastructures (networks and communication infrastructures for data exchange, communication, Internet), the design of information services and "agronomic and economic intelligence" platforms, based on data and models, algorithms for decision support (important role of research) in production and marketing, and linking Actors, Organisations (producer associations), by incorporating digital technology into their corporate strategies and policies and collective or individual action. Such ecosystem is easiest to implement in an enabling environment provided there is a Societal Model, a Sectoral Environment and a Political and Economic Context of the "digital economy". Therefore, what needs to be considered is the innovation system as a whole, the different components of which are more or less solid in certain countries and contexts.

Centres of excellence are particularly useful for the development of this innovation system (research centres working in the field of digital agriculture) for interdisciplinary research work, combining digital sciences and agronomic or social sciences. Such a level of collaboration between these disciplinary fields is not yet universally in place, see for example in France https://www.hdigitag.fr/fr/.

In addition to these generic aspects, there are also challenges specific to developing countries, such as the digital divide, but also the legal divide (lack of a legal, ethical and deontological legal framework for data use), which undermines confidence and vision about the real beneficiaries of such methods.

See https://spore.cta.int/fr/opinions/article/eviter-une-valorisation-technologique-et-economique-asymetrique-des-big-data-sid0726bd8f1-b891-47fc-8993-87861c5806dd

How can the establishment of the Digital Council address the numerous barriers to adoption of these technologies?

I believe that the most important factors are the inclusiveness and diversity of stakeholders since they ensure the diversity of points of view in accordance with ethical principles and because of their proven usefulness of the implementation of digital solutions (including commitment to the SDGs).

Do you think that the roles identified for the Digital Council are suitable for facing the agrifood systems challenges outlined above?

The proposed scheme seems appropriate, although the knowledge cluster must more effectively integrate the social sciences as these disciplines are studying issues of co-design, transition and adoption.

What governance structure should be in place in order for the Council to serve its purpose?

The establishment of a global alliance and thematic colleges (including a research and innovation college) with operational working groups that should provide clear deliverables would seem appropriate.

The idea of formulation of council anticipates development in agriculture which every nation should embrace as it's listed in most of SDGs, However not neglecting the dynamics each and every Nation encounters, this should be made a priority in designing as well as appreciating the existence and more empowerment of value chain of various enterprise which creates a significant additional in dissemination of ideas.

Murungi Jonan

Agriculture extension agent, Kampala Uganda.

The establishment of an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture is a move in the right direction.

Developed as a Contributory note are inputs for the Concept note. The note commences with a review of the discussion guide. Recommendations are made based on the questions raised and points highlighted as responses to each question. The note goes further to make recommendations for the Council’s positioning, knowledge hub, regulatory role, and required structure in member states.

Also attached is a presentation delivered on digital innovations across the value chain that may be helpful. 

Responses to the Discussion Guides are featured here:

Q1. What are the potential entry points for the government to address challenges and foster the development of digital agriculture? The entry points identified in the Q1 discussion guide are exhaustive. However, the Council should not overstretch itself by trying to provide solutions in all the areas highlighted. Instead, the Council should start with a focus on the low hanging fruits, work towards the widening of existing solutions, and support the development and adoption of new digital technologies.

Recommended entry points of priority are:

• Improving access to information, digital literacy, and digital solutions for Agriculture.
• Support for innovation systems through capacity building for the development and adoption of digital solutions.
• Advocacy for infrastructure development and investments towards Agtech
• A flexible regulatory framework for data acquisition, ownership and management, with the establishment of Trust mechanisms for data and information sharing. 

More on these in the note attached.

Q2. How can the establishment of the Digital Council address the numerous barriers to adoption of these technologies?  Highlighted in the discussion guide are principles to guide the operation of the Council. These do not necessarily address the HOW of addressing the numerous barriers to the adoption of these technologies. However, required as an addition to these principles are:

• Accountability: how and to whom the Council is to be accountable should be included
• Apolitical: farmers form a major political bloc in most nations - developing and developed. As the key stakeholder, Nations need to be reassured that the Council would not be a platform for the promotion of political agendas or foreign interests in their countries.

How the establishment of the Council can address the numerous barriers to adoption of technologies are addressed in later pages of attached note.

Q3. Do you think that the roles identified for the Digital Council are suitable for facing the food systems challenges outlined above? Currently identified are building a knowledge hub and regulatory framework as roles 1 and 2. For the knowledge hub, the “Investor Gap” is missing. From our observations at OpenFarm, digitization of African agriculture does not necessarily suffer from a lack of innovation, but scaling and adoption that is retained by sustainable business models. Many innovations end as pilots and PoCs without mass adoption. We have also noticed that many innovators are enthusiastic but lack the business edge required to succeed as entrepreneurs. Though the innovator or informer can also be an investor, the “Investor Gap” needs a separate thinking cap. History has repeatedly proven only exceptional minds are both. Therefore, resources with the sole purpose of driving investments into digital solutions for Agriculture should be provided in the knowledge hub to fill that gap. 

The council can be strategically positioned to do beyond roles 1 and 2. It can extend to a role 3 of making available Shared Platforms as building blocks to aid the digitization of agriculture in member Nations. Examples of these platforms are:

• A National directory of digital solutions for agriculture and solution providers. The input of each member state can form a global directory of digital solutions for agriculture.
• A National Data Portal on digitization in general with key stats such as internet connectivity, mobile penetration and more.
• Information platform with modules for news, production data, weather, GAPs, and market information which are responsive for mobile accessibility to Farmers and innovators can utilize as building blocks for other innovations.

• An Orchestration platform for request & feedback management, evaluation, matching, partnerships, communication and more.

These platforms can be developed from ground-up or aggregated from existing platforms. They can be available to member Nations as a SaaS or solutions to download and host independently.

Q4. What governance structure should be in place in order for the Council to serve its purpose? According to you, do you think the proposed governance scenario is politically feasible? For the Advisory Committee, it can also double as an Advocacy committee since it “…guarantees the involvement of International Organizations”. This would help to extend its deliverables of the Advisory council beyond only moments of consultation. The A&A committee can also suggest feedback from advocacy.

M & E Organism needs to be defined. Is it to be in the secretariat, a working group or outsourced?

As seen with the development of open source technologies, Working Groups (WGs) can be opened up to interested parties. Once problems are identified, independent groups of innovators, researchers and professionals should be able to provide solutions competitively. When the council is required to provide resources to working groups, evaluations of track records and submitted proposals can be made. These working groups can be based on campuses, innovation hubs, R & D labs, or solo operations.

The early deliverables of the executive council or a working group should include the required working groups based on the identified problems and needs, and the modalities for working groups.

Recommendations for the Council’s positioning, knowledge hub, regulatory role, and required structure in member states are provided in the attached note.

The potential entry point to this is the use of Youths especially in Africa.

Taking an example in our Country Tanzania, a big population of mobile phone technology adaptors is the youth population, and they are also suffering from unemployment  challenges.

Instead for them to wait for white colar jobs the government can take an initiative to support them and push them to involve in agriculture as it is very easy to get employed in agriculture in our country as there are no complications to own the farmland.

Overall comment: We want to stress that all the discussions and activities of the Digital Council should be guided by a human-rights based approach und support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food for all, especially for the most marginalized groups / food producers (further explanation see below). In the case of digital agriculture, the farmers’ rights of the FAO Seed Treaty should play a key role in the discussions, especially regarding the protection of farmers’ knowledge which is currently being threatened by corporate capture and algorithm-based decision-making assistance tools. Furthermore, the principle of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to “Leave no one behind” should be the key guiding principle for the establishment of an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture.

Question 1. What are the potential entry points for government to address challenges and foster the development of digital agriculture?

We want to highlight the importance of the entry point of socio-economic divides between developing and developed countries, rural and urban areas as well as between the genders. Despite all potential benefits of digital farming, there is a high risk of widening these gaps if governments and UN bodies fail to intervene in the process of digitalization that is currently being driven mainly by private companies. In our opinion, the role of states and donors should however not only be to foster digitalization in areas which have been left behind so far, in terms of promoting investments by the private sector, but rather work towards the provision of digital infrastructure as basic public services. Otherwise, digital infrastructure would run the risk of a lock-in of users in specific, incompatible private service systems and facilitate the misuse and commercialization of personal and operational data – especially in countries with weak or missing data protection legislation. Instead, net neutrality should be a key aim.

Moreover, we want to add to the entry point of data ownership – which is indeed a crucial aspect – the importance of data sovereignty. This includes, among other things, the secure storage of data in the country where it is collected. Currently, this remains a major issue especially on the African continent, where most of the data collected is stored in Europe or the US.

Lastly, we want to add the entry point of regulating large tech and agricultural companies, among other means by more effective measures of taxation and by a stricter competition law (so that mergers like the merger between Bayer and Monsanto, which made Bayer the leading company in digital agriculture, could not be approved in the future). A large number of technology and agricultural experts see the concentration of corporate power as one of the core challenges of digitalization (not only, but also in the field of food and agriculture). In general, the market concentration in the digital sector leads to a decline in the wage share and an increase of the capital ratio, leading to an increase of inequality. In the specific case of the agricultural sector, digitalization is also a driver of market concentration along the entire agricultural chain (see publication “Blocking the Chain”: https://webshop.inkota.de/node/1553). This can lead to lock-in effects of farmers who will find themselves dependent on the software and hardware of one service provider, once they start using a farm management information system that offers “solutions” from seed to harvest.

Question 2. How can the establishment of the Digital Council address the numerous barriers to adoption of these technologies?

We want to highlight the importance that the Digital Council should be designed in an inclusive way, especially including marginalized groups[1] organized in the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) as the largest international space of civil society organizations working to eradicate food insecurity and malnutrition. In our understanding, this should be achieved through maintaining the CFS principles of participation and representation since participation and inclusiveness have made the CFS a unique experience in the UN, particularly for organizations of small-scale producers. The council should ensure a balance of constituencies, gender, and regions.

Different from the proposal in the present concept, the main criteria should not be to “offer the greatest potential value to accelerating digital agriculture”, i.e. regarding digital agriculture as an end in itself, but to offer the greatest value to meeting the needs of small-scale food producers[2] or people working in rural areas to increase their sovereignty and their income and enable them to manage their farm in an ecologically and economically sustainable way, bridging socio-economic gaps.

Question 3. Do you think that the roles identified for the Digital Council are suitable for facing the agrifood systems challenges outlined above?

In the present concept, the roles of the Digital Councils do not match the challenges outlined and especially lack recommendations for governments concerning the regulation of digital agriculture (e.g. regarding data security and sovereignty, net neutrality and curbing corporate power and monopolistic structures). For example, the concept only says “Nations would gain practical suggestions to foster digitalization in agriculture”. However, as already stated in question 2, the main goal should not be to foster digitalization per se, but rather to meet the needs of (smallholder) farmers to increase their income and enable them to manage their farm in an ecologically and economically sustainable way, bridging socio-economic gaps. Digital applications can but don’t have to be a useful tool for that.

Question 4. What governance structure should be in place in order for the Council to serve its purpose? According to you, do you think the proposed governance scenario is politically feasible?

We think that marginalized groups (as mentioned already in question 2) should also be represented in the executive council, in order to increase the weight of their perspectives.

Moreover, we would like to make the following proposals for concrete questions / challenges the working groups should address:

(a) access to digital infrastructure or technologies, i.e. how to bridge socio-economic divides (see question 1);

(b) regulate coporate control, among other approaches through taxation and a stricter competition law (see question 1);

(c) questions of data sovereignty, ownership and storage;

(d) planetary boundaries, i.e. how to design digitalization so that it contributes to the realization of the aims of the latest UN climate agreement as well as the SDGs, including the realization of the principle of “leaving no one behind”

Question 5. Additional comments

It goes without saying that the establishment of the Digital Council should be in line with the CFS products like and the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests (VGGT), the voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food etc. and should support other UN or FAO processes like the implementation of the UN declaration of the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas (UNDROP) and the Scaling Up Agroecology initiative.

 

English translation below

Desde COAG, organización que representa los intereses de agricultores y ganaderos de España se considera positiva la iniciativa para crear un Consejo Digital Internacional para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. La digiltalización es un aspecto clave para el futuro de las y los agricultores, así como para las zonas rurales y el conjunto de la cadena alimentaria.

• Pregunta 1, 

Hay una cuestión clave que no está suficientemente reflejada en la propuesta:

- Participación del agricultor/a en la digitalización: los agricultores/as deben estar en el centro del proceso y convertirse en protagonistas del mismo, de manera que no se conviertan en víctimas del cambio sino que salgan reforzados del mismo. Una transformación digital que se realice sin contar con los agricultores no será exitosa. Se debe desarrollar adecuadamente dicha transformación, construyendo un ecosistema digital en el que puedan participar los agricultores, con el objetivo de potenciar y mejorar el modelo familiar y social de agricultura y alimentación. Se debe caminar por la senda de la democratización y favorecer, desde todos los ámbitos, que esta nueva era digital sea inclusiva, evitando que se produzca la enésima reconversión en el campo.

Por lo que se refiere a las ideas ya planteadas en el documento, estos son algunos comentarios:

- Respecto al aspecto de la alfabetización digital insuficiente y el desarrollo de nuevas capacidades, afectaría tanto a la mano de obra agrícola como a otros agentes del sistema. La formación y la existencia de un ecosistema digital que apoye al sector son necesarias. Un asesoramiento correcto, independiente y cercano es absolutamente necesario para tomar las decisiones correctas.

- En cuanto al acceso inadecuado a los recursos financieros, se comparte que es uno de los principales elementos que dificultan la digitalización. El agricultor aún no ve estas inversiones, en muchos casos de elevado coste, como un futuro beneficio sino principalmente como un riesgo. Aún no considera rentable lanzarse a esta clase de inversiones, aunque haya pequeños pasos que ya demuestran mejoras de este tipo. La relación coste-beneficio no es suficientemente beneficiosa en muchos casos.

- En lo que concierne a las infraestructuras inadecuadas y a las distintas brechas existentes, en el documento no se explicita la elevada brecha digital entre el medio rural y el urbano. EN el medio rural existe, en general, un deficiente acceso a Internet y a las redes de telefonía, con una cobertura insuficiente o inexistente. Es imprescindible mejorar este punto, a través de inversiones que doten de cobertura real y de velocidad suficiente no sólo a los núcleos rurales, sino también al campo, lugar de trabajo de los y las agricultores y ganaderos. A este respecto, también hay otra brecha que no se ha considerado suficientemente en el documento:  la brecha generacional. El elevado envejecimiento de la población agricultora supone un hándicap, no sólo por edad y por brecha generacional, sino por la necesidad de acometer determinadas inversiones costosas a las que pueden no estar dispuestos los agricultores de más edad.

- Finalmente, en lo que respecta la propiedad de los datos, en las explotaciones agrícolas y ganaderas, se va a generar, o se está generando, un nuevo producto: el dato. Sin el trabajo de los agricultores y agricultoras, no hay dato y eso hay que ponerlo en valor. Debe quedar suficientemente claro que la propiedad del dato es de aquel agente que lo genera y de ahí derivar los derechos y obligaciones correspondientes. Los datos constituyen la materia prima para que diversas aplicaciones puedan ayudar al productor en la optimización de la toma de decisiones y permitir así la mejora de la rentabilidad, de la calidad de los productos, del medio y de la calidad de vida de los hombres y mujeres del campo. Es necesario buscar el equilibrio entre ambas partes y conseguir ser rentables y sostenibles para el futuro inmediato y para el medio y largo plazo.

• Preguntas 2, 3 y 4

Se comparte plenamente que el Consejo Digital debe ser un órgano inclusivo. Para ello, debe asegurarse la presencia de las organizaciones que representan a los agricultores, los campesinos y los ganaderos, principales actores sobre los que pivota la transformación digital. Para ello, debe asegurarse su presencia, a través de las organizaciones que los representan, en los órganos de gobernanza del Consejo.

COAG, an organisation representing the interests of farmers and livestock producers in Spain, welcomes the initiative to establish an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture. Digitalization is key for the future of farmers, rural areas and the entire food chain.

Question 1

The proposal should better reflect one key challenge:

- Participation of farmers in digitalization: Farmers should be at the heart of the process and become key players. The digital transformation should reinforce -rather than impair- farmers, as they are essential to its success. This transformation should be properly undertaken, building a digital ecosystem in which farmers can participate with the aim of strengthening and improving food and agriculture at the social and household levels. The process should be democratic, fostering the inclusive nature of this new digital era across all sectors and avoiding yet another rural restructuration.

Regarding the ideas raised in the discussion guide, please find below some comments:

-  Inadequate digital literacy and new skills development: This entry point would not only affect agricultural labour force but also other actors across the system. Establishing a digital ecosystem that supports the agricultural sector is necessary. Adequate, independent and trusted advice is essential for making the right decisions.

- Inadequate access to financial resources: Indeed, this is one of the major obstacles to digitalization. Farmers still see the required investment -costly in many cases- as a risk, rather than a future benefit. Although some improvements are becoming evident in this field, farmers are not keen on making this type of investments, as they believe they are still not profitable. In many cases, the benefit-cost ratio is not favourable enough. 

- Inadequate infrastructures and socio-economic divides: The document makes no specific reference to the digital gap between rural and urban areas. In rural areas, Internet access and mobile network coverage are generally poor, or simply non-existent. Improving this infrastructure is essential. Investments are required to provide real coverage and adequate Internet speed, not only in rural towns but also on the field, the place of work of farmers and livestock producers. The document does not sufficiently address another important divide: the generational gap. Increased ageing of the farming population is a handicap. Not only due to the generational gap itself, but also because of the reluctance of many older farmers to make costly -but necessary- investments.

- Data ownership: Farms will generate -or already generate- a new product: data. Without the work of farmers, no data is available: this dependence should be properly valued.  Making sufficiently clear that data belongs to whoever generates it is also essential, laying the foundations for the corresponding rights and obligations. Data is the raw material required by different applications to optimize decision-making, improving the profitability and quality of agricultural products, the rural environment and the quality of life of farmers as a result. We need to seek the right balance with the aim of building a profitable –and sustainable- future in the short, medium and long term.

Questions 2, 3 and 4

The Digital Council should certainly be inclusive. To this end, farmers and livestock producers ‑key players on which digital transformation is based- must be adequately represented –by relevant organizations- in the governance structure of the Council.

The challenges to foster the development of digital agriculture are in my view a good overview of the situation. But these challenges are generic and also very much valid for other development sectors such as water, education, health, etc. 

To use them as potential entry points for government to foster the development of digital agriculture is fine as long as all the entry points are addressed in a comprehensive way and in the context of development in general and not just for digital agriculture. 

People will argue that you cannot address all these challenges at the same time. There are two tracks of development : the slow track that build the capacities in the country to lead the development and the fast track that involve external support to fill the gaps between now and the moment capacities are well-enough developed. Having a comprehensive approach will allow to combine both. And it will allow to be more adapted to the agriculture sector.

The council (if any) should would have a huge task in mainstreaming digitalization in agriculture and at the same time side-streaming digitalization for development. 

Example: At the moment, digital agriculture is not taking up because of private Agri companies using digital to foster agri production but because of IT companies interested in value-chain actors' data, and this unfortunately not for the purpose of fostering agriculture or the benefit of all small-holder farmers.

So creating a council is fine as long as it is clear what is the WHY, the HOW and the WHAT. With other words: is it to mainstream digital in agriculture or to side stream or both? Is the purpose to address the needs of small-holder farmers in the countries or to fit the interests of big tech/agri companies or both? 

When looking at the proposed governance it seems to me that it is a very traditional top-down approach. I may be wrong but I have the impression that there is limited room for bottom-up participation. Saying that an approach will be participative is probably not enough.

In a world where people are getting more and more frustrated by the elites and go down in the street, an international digital council for food and agriculture could be a great body to show the way forward, being innovative also in its governance. I would like to see a bold Council that willing to move away from business as usual...

We talk about agriculture and this is more that 500 million family farms worldwide (FAO 2014). With 7,7 billion people on the planet (2019 - 45% leaving in rural area) we talk about roughly 3 billion small-holder farmers (more that 50% being women). This is a huge part of the world population and giving them a say in the council would be right, considering that we consider they are feeding the planet... 

Caroline Figuères

former IICD directeur and consultant in the field of digitalisation for development