المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

Contribution received through the e-Agriculture platform

Q1

It is relevant to focus on the equal better use of what is available today by the people in the different realities. It’s not only about accessibility to different things, because due to WWW huge amounts of data and tools are there awaiting to be used. The focal matter is to open opportunities to everybody to have the best benefit of them.

In most countries, it’s government’s duty to seek for the well-being of the population, but in most of them, society is able to participate through civil participation, NGO’s, etc. A possible useful strategy to address this is for decision takers to open the analysis process to different society’s actors, that can offer knowledge, plans and creativity to face this everybody’s problem. 

Agriculture has to be considered a local activity with global impact. Inside the sustainability development’s postulates, this activity has to provide products and inputs not only to population surrounding the parcels, considering we are living in a global village. Important global tools such as satellite imagery can benefit different countries that might be in a difficult situation to buy, develop or use other technological tools.  

A multinational council has the opportunity to focus correct efforts where are needed, because the local requirements have to be attended as so, having always in mind that each region is different in environmental, social and economic issues. This uniqueness can be better addressed by strategies emerging from de discussion of different points of view from inside and outside the areas.

Q2

The establishment of a council is a good opportunity to enhance available resources to address the limit of a barrier to adopt technology for agriculture. People in it have to seek for general benefits, sometimes thinking in local scale, other times in national level and even thinking of regions including parts or different entire countries. A special benefit of a council is that people proposing and taking decisions can (and should) be from de site, but also from other areas, to bring a different point of view.

Q3

Yes. I think these roles are useful baselines to face the challenges. Concrete products such as guides can set similar strategies, considering successful experiences. Bur also, there is a commitment in different ones, which becomes more useful, but also more difficult to accomplish.

Q4

Yes. Structure and duties look fine. The important thing about it is linked to question 2, considering that the people conforming it should be inclusive, neutral, accessible, autonomous, efficient, ethical and some other more.

I support the idea, however mainstreaming its decisions into National implementation becomes a complex scenario. 

This is due to Countries priorities and available fund to support Council decisions. 

Please see comments from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Attached

Inputs of the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) 

Online Discussion: Towards the establishment of an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture

8th November 2019

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

Addressing systemic inequalities

In line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development  agreed by UN member-states as the overall framework for all UN agencies and programs, efforts toward the establishment of an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture must be guided by the vision to “Leave No One Behind”.  This is directly relevant to the theme of agricultural digitalization in a context characterized by serious systemic divides that underpin the so-called “Digital Divide”, between the global North and the global South, between rural and urban regions, and between gender.  

Tackling corporate power in global food and agriculture

Systemic inequalities are often exacerbated by the application of digitalization and other new technologies in agriculture as can be seen in the continuous domination and consolidation of corporate power in seeds, agrochemicals and farm machineries as well as in livestock and animal pharmaceuticals. The increasing role of data and technology platforms  in the food and agriculture through control of Big Data are strategic concerns that need to be tackled.

Respect for peoples’ rights

The promotion of digitalization in agriculture must be based on recognition and respect of peoples’ collective and individual rights. Citizen’s rights to privacy, protection of personal information and collective data, and prior informed consent are the most obvious rights-related issues that need to be addressed and promoted in agricultural digitalization.  More fundamentally, human rights including farmers’ rights and right to health must be respected and protected as enshrined in international laws and norms.

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

A fundamental question that need to be addressed by any governance measures in agricultural digitalization is whether the adoption and promotion of new technologies can address the systemic problems that beset agriculture? Uncritical approaches that embrace these technologies without question presents blinders to seeing the big picture and the horizon in agricultural digitalization

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

Form should follow function.  A thorough consideration of whether digitalization presents an effective a solution to challenges in food and agriculture, whether it will truly address inequality, corporate control and the assault to farmers’ rights should predicate any discussion on governance structure. In the case of the idea to establish an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture, the Ministerial Declaration by the 2019 Global Forum for Agriculture (GFFA), exploring means to conduct impact assessment of digital technologies is an explicit component and should be an inherent part of any discussion on the proposal for a Digital Council and should define its roles and mandate. Horizon scanning is an key capacity that international and national institutions on agriculture current lack.  There should be a mechanism to provide information on digital technologies and their potential impacts on farmers and rural communities, biodiversity and the environment. It should also include assessing digital technologies and corporate power behind them, along with countries/governments that are producing and selling these technologies. Assessment should not be ex ante when impacts are already felt after a digital technology application has been deployed commercially but early in the research and development process.

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

Any governance mechanism on agricultural digitalization should be within the UN system, to be governed by UN rules and established norms. There should be balanced representation: North-South, regional, gender, farmers movements and civil society, including those that represent critical views.  The central role of small-scale farmers should be explicit. Transparency, inclusiveness and public participation should be key guiding principles.

5.    Please add any other comment or relevant content you think should be included in the Concept Note.

In pursuit of establishing an international digital council for food and agriculture, it will be important to have worthy direction.

It is another pivotal moment of deciding how much online currency and online voting power or policy making v.s. how much positive direction and support should be established with something like this. It is another moment where we may not be doing anything accept performing bureaucracy that get's in the way of progress, we should be careful not to do this.

For myself, it has seemed curious how for years we can not facilitate an individual citizen; accurate vote on individual issues and tax dollars spent, when the means do so through Social Security numbers (and a few other numbers) such as the ID number here in Panama which has existed almost two decades.

Total voting regulatory power could sit well within the now very popular block chain technologies, and this all bates mention of a Panama colleagues' Producers Market token, an agriculture v.s. digital technology solution. I happen to have an inside look at the team here and the king of this Hill, more or less selected to my knowledge and likely overall success, by my favorite teacher - and this type of selection in this case certainly, does not come to the undeserving. This model could be extremely proactive in promoting better agriculture that does not harm biology and wildlife.

If I am understanding the Producers Token platform right it would [c] essentially function as a marketing engine for the council itself, and for small transparent organic farmers within the ranks. [d] Food distribution costs can be saved and gained by the consumer and the producer who would be able to connect through the network. It is really quite perfect / even very much so for Nutritional Diversity Diet enthusiasts, who could through a network like this arrange there private food purchases for the required high food biodiversity.

I have enjoyed being one of the more abstract contributors to these important discussions. I also enjoy coming from a standpoint which I feel is correct. Don't we all, but important is to go slow and not to get too ahead of things, to cause any stumble. In any event I realize my comments and suggestions are a bit off key topics, all though no less important considerations.

Discussion:

What about a really proactive council, to reforest using permaculture's food forest model, disaster stricken lands, etc. To educate cattle farmers how through permaculture models and not too much more on investment, can have there cows and and whole bunch of other goodies too.

If we can expand our hopes and aim to something of this nature, the impact would be good.

For database information on plant species, the smart phone app iNaturalist, seems to be a great functioning storage and reference for plant species and could play an integral role in helping each geographic region share whats working there. the program is a great text book of sorts to bringing humanity back in touch with nature and back up knowledge Parr on functional foods and other plants around them. It is with kind of knowledge that we can learn and grow into a life in harmony with nature instead of at odds with it and obtain individual freedom and sustainability for ourselves that can last.

Obviously today technology and the development there of is the root of the 12 year crisis so let's get to learning and turning this world around, for our children and all the animals and biology on the planet.

Can this international body dare to inspire insanely incredible ecology to our beautiful world? If so I have just the idea for this!  Intelligent humans  should be able to manage the growth of incredible thrive-ability and special natural development, the problem has always been for some reason large land plant related developments have been mono culture. Here every vegetable, teak wood is a mono culture. Every tree is cleared for cow pasture. This is the complete opposite direction. If we go the right direction of diversity, we should be raise some amazing eco-cultures far beyond our dreams and compatibilities of today.

As an innovator in the field of this very science of diverse agriculture, we have discovered and tested the incredible results of diverse nutrition production and we know that the possibilities are endless here. 

As a technical body can we task ourselves to develop waist collection and conversion technologies through simple design contests that award the money to do it. This is also provides the opportunity to the communities themselves suffering the variety of problems they do to become successful by uplifting their world.

Online the resources are easy to develop, and can support various motions such as

• Very easily online shared open source development file and information sharing potentials.
• Event information and motivation contest administration.
• World wide unified actions in Bio-Dynamic Agriculture.

In many ways if we don't have the focus on the species,  what are we doing.

If we are focusing on the species, regional climate categories would be able to harvest seed and use young species to supply ever expanding permaculture installations.

In this a joint efforts standard agreement could be a good fixture. For example should a poor farmer convert and work /grow on certain owned property for 50% take of produce. This could be great to see abandoned pasture or tragically destroyed lands be productively utilized easier. Also for public owned crisis land restoration efforts.

Recently we discussed land contracts, and there was some mention of disaster land agreements and national or private land options that offered the opportunity for reforestation, rehabilitation or permaculture to offset the "12 years left crisis," give the poor an out, and give constructivist to ourselves regarding our biological parents in whom we always codependent (plants). These features should be apart of any online consulship also, and were well covered then.

To grow the focus on land, agriculture etc., I see gaining funding a project thought. One idea could be deal with a company like Airbnb who is already leveraging property value to and from diverse independent properties, could maybe allow a optional tax deductible 2-6%  optional donation on each transaction to see actual reforestation work happen. The company recently advertised and experience based reservation to get to know the animal kingdom, which I thought was very cool.

By the way Airbnb operators can start making greener properties growing diverse foods and other plants anytime they want.

Counsel gained funds from whatever source should pay directly to people reforesting land, using their imaginations and making totally awesome Avatar-like ecology all over the globe. I know it sounds a stretch, but isn't that what is needed?

What I could do with even a few more hectares in a few more micro climates, some cleared cattle land permaculture redesign, I could rattle off things all day there is so much potential out there.

Another easily achievable, and well supported web-place to offer the option to contribute this could be high school programs and great websites like this one used to follow high school sports. To get kids and parents and the community interested and a little more involved with the ecology they live in, is a great step!

Digital sharing competitions of incredible farming achievements, or installations, or learning presentations, etc., should be the regular to inspire actual no-chemical-use agriculture and wildlife protection.

1. The number one agenda should be addressing the 12 year crisis, and turning this world around.
2. Thinking about it, regional territories should control their own funding, marketing and conduct their own project management. Regions can also conduct their elections for council persons. Nominations should be based on merit actual work and accomplishment.
3. Embedded connections, other technical developments and code assistance type of expenses can be paid by a yearly percentage of each region.

This concludes my suggestions on this one.

Thanks to group and all that you do.

Society for International Deveolpment submits the following comments to the concept note concerning the establishment of an International Digital Council. Please kindly refer to the attached document. 

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your valuable contribution in "Towards Establishing an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture", which will help us prepare a comprehensive Concept Note that considers the views and experiences of all relevant stakeholders. We will try our best to consolidate all your remarks and integrate into the final document.

It's a great honor to work with you through an open-consultation and co-creation to establish an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture which will enable us to face challenges and embrace opportunities in agri-food system, and ensure leaving no one behind in the digital age and contributing to achieve SDGs.

The final Concept Note will be launched at next GFFA event in Berlin on January 16, 2020. We invite for your continuous support to this initiative.

Again, thank you very much for your valuable contribution.

Best regards,

Samuel Varas, FAO

Meng Zeng, FAO

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

Digital agriculture is still in the hands of few and in this moment is intensifying the polarisation in rural areas between poor and rich farmers, leading the latter to be extremely dependent on technology. Governments, actually, have no control over this process. Digital innovations are introduced by the private sector, without comprehensive impact assessments or regulatory frameworks by governments. This undermines government control over processes in the food and agriculture sector that impact the right to food for all.

Governments should support: 1) digital-agriculture programmes as farmer/community led process for the well-being of family farming. In Agroecology (Nyeleny 2015) there are examples of that. 2) Impact assessment of the on-going digitalization innovations 3) technological sovereignty initiatives 4)Regulatory frameworks that prevent any privatisation of data. 5)Precautionary principle applied in all policy recommendations on the implementation of digital agriculture. 6) policies and practices of the CSO's lead initiatives on digital agriculture

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

The mandate of the Digital Council is unclear and itself cannot be the tool to address this challenge. The total lack of any kind of regulation enforced on digital agriculture cannot be addressed by a generic forum, with participation of stakeholders like mega ICT companies that have a clear conflict of interest, and are entering for the first time ever in the food sector.

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

Policy and regulatory frameworks for digitalisation are the main priority: An immediate moratoria should be called to avoid concentration of data in the hands of a few companies, as is already happening. There is a clear underestimation of the impact of digitalisation on the food systems all around the world on the Right to Food. A Digital Council that has no regulatory power cannot address these risks and impacts. The next FAO Regional Conferences in 2020 (as already started in ERC 2018) should address the need for regulatory frameworks for digital agriculture and all FAO COAG should include these discussions in their agendas. Finally, the CFS in the ongoing work on the policy recommendation on Innovations, should define an overarching policy and regulatory framework.

Until comprehensive regulatory frameworks are in place, a moratorium on any concentration of all kind of agricultural data in the hands of private companies should be put in place on the basis of the precautionary principle.

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

The Council should work under the Guidance of the CFS and respect the fundamental mandate and principles of the CFS.

Please add any other comment or relevant content you think should be included in the Concept Note.

The seed sector has already shown how DSI is hindering farmers rights and creating more and excessive concentration in the seed sector, which is having a devastating impact on agricultural biodiversity.



Data are collected by farmers and the farmer's data ownership is still not at all defined and regulated, but a few companies are already collecting and storing immense quantities of data. This has to be stopped immediately.



Trade: Agricultural data collected by the farmers are not trade commodities. The WTO cannot claim any role in setting regulatory frameworks. Farmers rights and the right to adequate food and the recently approved UNDROP are the appropriate references to be used by governments.

Until now, no serious impact assessments on digital agriculture have been conducted. There is no clarity on the impacts of digitalisation on food and agriculture, and in particular, on the collecting and concentration of data which risks the extreme concentration of power in the food sector. There is also no impact assessment on the entry of the new actors - ICT companies - on the food sector . This has to be cautiously considered to assess the economic, ecological, and social impact.

Joint contribution of the European Commission.

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

In our view, the main entry points which should deserve most attention in view of fostering the uptake of digital tools in agriculture are:

• Fostering the link between eAgriculture and FinTech companies and the farmers, including farmers associations.
• Increasing the cooperation between Agriculture and Digital ministries and authorities inside governments, including farmers organisations.
• Government support schemes for assuring connectivity to farmers such as voucher schemes (EU experience)
• Governments have to assure that the farm advisory system in place, sufficiently addresses questions related to digitalization of the agricultural sector.
• Impact on the environment, being it negative or positive, should be one of the main issues to be taken into account: use of energy, use of sensitive minerals, positive and negative contribution to climate change, etc.
• The council should act considering the concentration of market operators.
• Inadequate access to information: How are the farmers aware of the available digital tools currently available and their benefits?
• Inadequate digital literacy and new skills development: How can governments encourage, promote and provide access to trainings for farmers wishing to use digital tools? How to ensure closing the digital gap between farmers (especially the ageing ones) and the rest of population? How to make farming attractive and modern for younger generations? For coping with digitalization farmers and food processors do not only need digital literacy, but also management skills for being able to decide which digital technologies from comprehensive portfolio is suitable for their business.
• Inadequate infrastructures: Digital divide is one of the main issues in rural areas and should be addressed providing reliable and affordable broadband connection fostering the uptake of digital tools in the farming sector. For instance, while SMS eAgri services are providing real benefits, the full potential will be reached by internet services accessed on smartphones. Inclusion of broadband connectivity in the national rural and agricultural policies.
• Data ownership: legal aspects of data ownership and protection are a cause of concern - issue of ‘datification’ (how to use the flow of data being produced to the benefit of farmers and how to ensure the added value of using all those data?).

Countries and farmers in particular should directly benefit from the “data economy” they generate thanks to digital transformation in agriculture.

Comments on the concept paper related to question 1:

• The global challenges presented are not conclusive.
• The council should assure the cross-cutting cooperation between the agriculture and digital sector at public and private level.
• The council is to address the agriculture and food sectors, but the contents of the initiative seems rather limited to agriculture. Digitalisation heavily impacts the food chain (e.g. blockchains), so the council mandate should cover the whole food chain.
• On the other hand, data on the current uptake of precision farming and other digital technologies by farmers is not available; stocktaking is needed.
• One main aspect missing in the text under Question 1, is the facilitated access to public data, which does not only refer to making data freely available, but also in an appropriate format.
• The elements suggested in concept note mix up two different aspects in nature: challenges related to the digitalisation versus possible actions for governments. The last aspect is hardly addressed and not sufficient elaborated. Given that the Council is not exclusively composed by governmental organisations, it would be suggested that the global challenges are addressed in a different question from the one referred to what governments and other players can do to drive the digitalization of the agri-food sector in a responsible way differentiated by stakeholder group. It is worth to note that the digitalization of the agri-food sector cannot be achieved effectively and efficiently by actions undertaken by governments alone.
• On the bullet point related to the “The increase of socio-economic divides between developing and developed countries”, there is a need to take into consideration the fact that the risk of a digital divide does not only exist between developed and non-developed countries. A digital divide may also occur between large and small farms or within the food chain between operators having more or less buying powers.
• To complement on the digital divide, the Council should specifically address the divide between men and women, and young and old people.
• On the bullet point related to the lack of investment, it is to be considered that this issue does not only concerns developing counties.
• The bullet point on “low affordability of new solutions” needs to be further elaborated – how does this aspect proposes good regulation, new business models, use of mix of technologies (satellite connectivity), voucher support schemes.
• Another concern regarding “affordability”: how to design digital tools that are useful and accessible to farmers? In many cases the need of farmers are not really taken into account when designing tools and digital services (strategy based on the supply of technologies and not on the demand). How to better involve farmers and farmers’ organizations in the design and management of the digital services?
• To complement on affordability, there is the need for a strong analysis on the digital tools and technologies and their specific context.
• On the bullet related to “Trust of information”, it should be highlighted that farmers are currently not the greatest beneficiaries in the data value chain
• The Council should focus on the promotion and interoperability of online supporting the function of agricultural markets.
• The Council should focus on better using mobile payments for supporting small farmers

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

• The Digital Council should be “inclusive” recognizing that countries are not all at the same level of development when we talk of digital agriculture.
• Expectations from the consumers in terms of food traceability for instance and of the agricultural community must both be taken into account when discussing about digital solutions in view of getting everyone on board.
• “Be neutral”: when selecting technologies supporting potential socio-economic and environmental impacts are to be considered as well.
• “Be ethical”: “Considering the rights of the vulnerable” should be brought in a new sentence
• “Be honest/fair”: should be added. The digitalisation is an innovation that provokes positive and negative impacts (as any other innovation), expected and unexpected impacts, direct and indirect impacts, winners and losers, etc. The council must fairly address all the controversies.
• The Council should engage with the private sector and remove barriers for investments such as unpredictability of regulations and fiscal policies
• Address connectivity by bringing together mobile operators and farmers associations
• Digitalisation should be an integral part of agriculture and rural policies
• Promote strong privacy regulations such as GDPR compliance, and privacy by default technologies
• Digital Council should promote an inclusive approach supporting small and local farmers in taking advantage of digitalisation and digital transformation

Comments on the concept paper related to question 2:

• There might be several interpretations or visions on how to develop digital farming and such variety of visions should be preserved to avoid any mainstreaming. Contexts, conditions, means are different and digital solutions should be tailor-made not imposed from a supranational body.
• It is paramount to promote the benefits of digital tools among the agricultural community to foster the uptake rather than imposing them how to do their work or changing their.
• In bullet point one, rural communities are mentioned; their role has not been elaborated under the other parts of the concept note; it is not clear, if they should have relevance only as far as it concerns the agri-food sector or the comprehensive integrated rural development by means of digitalization.
• The “end user” or “the types of end users” need to be further defined. Does it include only farmers, also food processors or other actors?

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

• The figure outlined in the discussion paper is not consistent, elements are repetitive to some extent. Some aspects go beyond the scope of the Council.

Comments on the concept paper related to question 3:

• Overall, the figure would benefit from a differentiation in actions to be carried out in short-term, medium-term and long term. Some actions are one-time activities, for which a framing is missing.
• The figure would benefit from the description of a strategic approach towards the work of the Council.
• The figure is divided into two main blocks “Role 1” focussing on a knowledge hub and “Role 2” focussing on a policy and regulatory framework. The creation of a knowledge hub is insufficient for reaching out to the end-user of digital technologies and triggering innovation development and uptake. It might be adapted to focus on the creation of a knowledge and innovation system, approaching also the communication between stakeholders including processes of co-creation and (knowledge) transfer.
• The Role 2 may go beyond the scope of the Council as agreed at the GFFA: the creation of a (common) regulatory framework is not a declared objective in the declaration signed at the GFFA. The work of the Council may guide signing countries to enhance policy framing conditions for the uptake of digital technologies, but the council itself is not to create regulations. In so far the figure is misleading and the text might be adapted deleting “regulatory”.
• The description of the three types of gaps is not conclusive: The innovation gap goes beyond a lack of R&D tailored to local contexts. The phrasing “integrator gap” might be re-considered, if it is to reflect on the need of increased multi-stakeholder collaboration.
• It is not clear, how the following is to be understood “ National would gain practical suggestions to foster digitalisations in agriculture”
• Important to make the link between the two elements “methods for closing gaps in these areas” and “collaboration could be an effective way to enable digitalization in an inclusive way”.
• A comprehensive stocktaking of the current extent of use of digital technologies will be essential to form a basis for the activities of the council.
• Capacity building (activities to strengthen capacities or guidelines to manage this topic)

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

• The governance structure should first and foremost be transparent to ensure the full adhesion and participation of the member countries.
• The digital sector (mobile operators and service providers) should be sufficiently represented
• The Council should be providing a service to member countries delivering clear benefits for them otherwise there is a risk of low commitment and participation. Redundancy with other networks and similar reflexion groups should be avoided.
• The description of the governance structures of the Council are insufficient and to some extent non-convincing. Especially the following aspects call the attention:

• The flow of resources is not described.
• The role of donors is not described.
• It calls the attention that the executive council is described as expert group, and that in parallel working groups, which can be expected to form expert groups as well, are set up.
• It is not clear, whether some organisations and governments, which are not represented in the executive council will have an observer role.
• It is not clear, whether activities carried out by the working groups are completely accomplished by the working groups themselves, or whether they are outsourced.
• The relation between working groups and executive council is not explained.

Comments on the concept paper related to question 4:

• While it is rather common to have a structure which steer the process and the work of such Council, it is also important to keep some possibilities for the member countries to propose some specific themes to be analysed and further developed when relevant.

5. Please add any other comment or relevant content you think should be included in the Concept Note.

Overarching remarks

The documents provided as basis for the online consultation appear not to be mature enough on the one hand, and too detailed on the other: while the overarching mandate and concept of the Council to be established has not been profoundly elaborated, some part of the discussion documents already contain quite detailed elements.

Furthermore, there are very few details on the funding mechanisms and the “status” the council will have within the FAO. Will it be an FAO body? Will it be independent or part of the FAO technology directorate? What role for the international organisations that are part of this process?

The overarching objectives and field of actions for the council are not clearly defined (description of mandate is missing); One of the main objectives should be to bring at the same table digital and agriculture public and private stakeholders and offer a platform for partnership.

The scope of the council appears – following the current outlines – be rather focussed on agricultural production, rather than on the whole food chain including food producers, processors; and traders; particularly food processing SMEs might be a crucial target group for the council as well.

The geographical scope is not defined. Digital solutions, especially when applied to agriculture, only work if they are thought and developed for a specific context. Generalisations should be avoided. The work of the Council should be organised according to geographical areas and then divide between rural and urban areas.

The council should diversify the approaches according to the areas and clarify its objectives for the medium to the long term. This will also imply a prioritisation of technologies and digital solutions depending on the areas of intervention.

The origin and amount of resources on which the work of the council is based is not clear, which makes it difficult to assess the potential field of action;

The roles of governments having signed the declaration, international organisations, other stakeholders and actors in countries not having signed the declaration is not clear.

In general, it presents a positive image of digitalization. Such a council must have a broader analysis to be sure to analyse the challenges and the risks in order to overcome these risks (digital divide, impact on environment, support all the farmers and especially small/poor farmers and other type of actors (women, youth, etc.)

The guidance note does not mention the already existing platforms/networks at international/continental level in terms of coordination mechanisms, which are able/willing to address digital agriculture and food, the strengths and weaknesses of the existing council/mechanisms (for example TAP, Godan, CGIAR Big Data Platform). A clear analysis on the different mechanisms and their roles would help better defining the added value of this council.

There is a need to better align the thinking and the proposals with the SDG. Digitalization is a mean not an objective. The type of agriculture may be supported by digital tools (intensive, agroecological, industrial, family agriculture) is not only a question of access to resources, capacity strengthening to avoid “reluctant parties”.

Finally, it is stated that the council will address the privacy issue. However, it has to be considered among the most important actions of the Council. It will have to act to protect the data of millions of potential users, and the EU GDPR is among the best examples to follow.

I appreciate the initiative of formation of International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture. Now we are living in age of globally integrated information communication technology (ICT) in handy and affordable price. Ecommerce, ATM card, POS, e-wallet, mobile banking, translation and Transliteration apps, sensor based disaster management apps, food, nutrition and agricultural videos / apps, TV apps, online radio, social media, supply chain management system, various software and websites etc all are various forms of ICT. Using ICT, any remote farmer can exchange latest scopes of agriculture. So, I think proper and fair way use of ICT without discrimination for food and agriculture will be bless for all.