Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Этот участник внес свой вклад в:

    • 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.

       

       

      [1] The CSM is based on 11 Constituencies: Smallholders Farmers, Pastoralists/Herders, Fisherfolks, Indigenous Peoples, Consumers, Urban Food Insecure, Agricultural and Food Workers, Women, Youth, Landless, NGOs

      [2] Smallholders Farmers, Pastoralists/Herders, Fisherfolks, Indigenous Peoples, Consumers, Urban Food Insecure, Agricultural and Food Workers, Women, Youth, Landless, NGOs