Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Please find attached the United States comments to the introduction of FAO’s online discussion on the “Establishment of an International Digital Council for Food and Agriculture.”

Thanking you in advance for your kind attention,

Maria Adelaide D’Arcangelo

United States Department of Agriculture

US Mission to the UN Agencies| US Embassy Rome

Key Points and Questions on the Governance of Digital Agriculture

Should an International Digital Council be struck, it should consider the following points as priorities:

1. Digitalisation of food and agriculture should not be automatically considered positive or desirable. The autonomy of diverse cultural food and life ways of peoples and communities across the globe must be respected and protected as distinct and autonomous systems. It should not be assumed that smallholders WANT to be “integrated into new digitally driven agrifood systems” (USAID 2018, in Trendov, Varas, Zeng 2019 p1).
2. A clear division needs to be made between industrial food systems and peasant / cultural / agroecological food systems. Peasant food systems should not be subjected to incorporation into industrial systems through digitalisation initiatives. At present, most digital technologies – precision agriculture and remote sensing technologies, big data, cloud, analytics, remote sensing technologies - are designed to serve failing industrial food systems.
3. The millions of small-scale food producers across the globe, who produce the majority of the world’s food and who also disproportionately suffer from hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity have the right to decide what kind of food and agriculture systems we want, and the right to participate in decisions that affect us. This includes digitalisation processes. Thus far, the consultations that have been conducted on this process have not included any small-scale food producers organisations. This is an unacceptable omission that should be corrected going forward.

Responses to questions for concept note

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

• Before governments address challenges and foster the development of digital agriculture, there are some important questions that need to be answered: What digital technologies are being developed and promoted and by whom? Who benefits from these developments? On what basis are digital technologies considered desirable? Have communities been consulted about their needs and aspirations for their food and agriculture systems? What are the risks to the rights, food security and livelihoods of people and communities of digital agriculture technologies?
• Private sector industrial innovations have already been shown to undermine democratic rights of people and communities to have a voice in decisions that affect them. This needs to be addressed directly and immediately. Indeed, the 2019 FAO status report Digital technologies in agriculture and rural areas recognised “large international companies predominantly use digital transformation in agriculture in a context of agribusiness. This process also affects other organizations, such as governments, public sector agencies and local agripreneurs, which are involved in tackling societal challenges such as rural livelihood, women and youth unemployment and agripreneurship” (Trendov et al, 2019 p2)
• Any process of digitalisation undertaken by governments and/or the private sector must respect pre-existing international human rights declarations, relevant treaties, conventions, and national laws. Violation of these instruments must incur strict and severe penalties.
• Governments MUST conduct comprehensive risk, impact, and benefit assessments of any new technology in a participatory and inclusive manner, prioritising the inputs of those most affected by hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity.
• Governments MUST create strong legal and regulatory frameworks to protect people and communities from the potential negative impacts of digital agriculture technologies. These technologies must be strictly regulated, and communities should be protected from imposition of new technologies on them by private interests and governments.
• Investment in basic rural infrastructure, guided by the needs of communities, should be the first priority to address inequalities between rural and urban populations, in both developing and developed countries.
• Technologies should be developed to foster public goods first and foremost. People, not profits, should guide policy decisions.
• Data must be owned and controlled by the people who generate it, not private companies. Private sector access to and use of public data must be strictly regulated.
• The environmental and health impacts of digitalisation need to be carefully considered, assessed, and integrated into policy and regulatory frameworks – taking into account every point in the value chain – from the manufacture of hardware which relies on extractive industries such as mining, to their disposal, and also considering the issue of energy consumption involved in transportation and storage.
• If established, the Digital Council should consider the potential for digital technologies to contribute to sustainable energy transitions, to improve the efficient recycling and reuse of raw materials (reducing their continued extraction) their role in clean up and restoration of degraded and polluted landscapes, and many other applications needed for transition away from hydrocarbon-dependent growth economies and towards steady state and degrowth economies based on clean energy.

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

• Inequalities between and within countries are the primary cause of hunger and malnutrition. Governments must begin by addressing these problems collectively.
• The council should not be neutral. If established, its work should be firmly anchored in advancing the progressive realisation of human rights, including the right to food, the rights of women, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the rights of peasants and people working in rural areas.
• While many technologies may be desirable and useful, we need to be very cautious and recognise the risk for misuse, and the potential of digital technologies to exacerbate existing inequalities and injustices. Technologies should be in the service of people and communities and enhance their livelihoods. As such, data must be collectively owned by communities, accessible, affordable, ethically designed, produced, distributed, and regulated. The process of developing these technologies should be democratic and bottom-up, and respond to the needs and aspirations of people and communities while ensuring decent work, ecological integrity, sustainability, and equity.
• In recognition of the need for transformative food system change to address the multiple interdependent crises of rising global hunger and malnutrition, climate change, mass migration, and inequality, agroecological approaches have been shown to have the greatest potential for meeting all these challenges in ways that are community-led, context-adaptable, and sustainable. Many of the industrial innovations under the rubric of digitalisation such as precision agriculture and DSI do not address these challenges, and may in fact contribute to them (HLPE 2019). How will the Council address these contradictions?
• The technologies themselves could possibly benefit diverse publics, if they were democratised. That is, if their development was oriented to enhancing public goods, through participatory and inclusive mechanisms, and based on collective rights and shared access, use, and benefit to and with communities. The research and development of new industrial technologies should be based in an understanding of and respect for the complex interdependence of nested, dynamic human and ecological systems. As this is not the case, these “solutions” are highly unlikely to support the food system transitions so urgently needed.
• In terms of its ethical responsibilities, the council should not only make sure that technologies are used in an ethical way, but that ethical principles guide their design, development, testing, manufacturing, distribution, ownership, control, and benefit

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

• The agri-food systems challenges we collectively face will not be magically fixed by digital technologies. They will be addressed only by governments upholding the rights of their publics, and by legal and regulatory frameworks and policies that serve public goods. Digital technologies can play a role in this, but only if they are democratised. Private sector concentration in the digital sector is the first priority that this digital council should address.

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

• What is the rationale for forming a Digital Council? What other fora already exist for discussion on these topics, and what gaps would this council fulfil? Has any assessment has been done on this? Before going forward, there should be a comprehensive assessment of the different intergovernmental fora where digital technologies for food and agriculture are being discussed. Surely, any discussion on digital agriculture should take place within already existing fora on food and agriculture, namely the UNFAO, and primarily the CFS, which is the foremost intergovernmental platform for food and agriculture policy.
• If established, who would this council be accountable to? Who would set the priorities for its work and on what basis? How would accountability be monitored and ensured?
• Not all stakeholders are equal. Private interests whose motivation is shareholder profits should not be given equal voice to people and communities, who are rights holders, and to whom governments, as duty bearers, are responsible. What mechanisms will be in place to prevent conflicts of interest? Private Sector participation and influence in the Council should be strictly limited due to conflicts of interest.
• What mechanisms will be in place to ensure democratic and inclusive participation of vulnerable and marginalised communities in the council? Small-scale food producers across the world have most at stake in this discussion, and as such their voices should be prioritised.
• While a number of stakeholders invested in industrial agriculture and food systems have taken up the rhetoric of sustainability, their piecemeal, technical approaches (e.g. biofortification, so-called sustainable intensification, biotechnology) do not address these dysfunctionalities in a holistic, participatory, and transformative way. In essence, these so-called solutions are driven by the logic of unchecked economic growth and the accumulation of private profit at the expense and disregard of public goods. Those responsible for the development of digital agriculture technologies are operating under the same logics. We should be very clear to evaluate any new technologies on the basis of already agreed-uopn normative principles – to uphold, protect, and fulfil human rights and the right to food. The CFS is the space in which to address these issues.

​​​​​​​References:

HLPE. 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and

food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level

Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food

Security, Rome.

Trendov, N. M., Varas, S. & Zeng, M. (2019). Digital technologies in agriculture and rural

areas – Status report. Rome. Licence: cc

New Zealand Comments on proposal for an International Digital Council

Thank you for providing the opportunity for members to comment on the proposal for the establishment of an International Digital Council.

New Zealand understands that there is a ministerial mandate (agreed by agriculture ministers at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture 2019 and the G20 Agriculture Ministers’ Meeting 2019) to envision a concept of the Digital Council for further consideration, not a mandate for establishing the Council itself. Therefore this process should be viewed as a scoping exercise at this stage.

New Zealand does not see a need for an agricultural and food specific International Digital Council. We are concerned that the establishment of such a council will duplicate similar work already underway in multiple international fora. In our view digital issues are best addressed in a sectoral neutral manner and this proposal would undermine that objective.

New Zealand does not support the proposal to create a large and complex structure to support the Digital Council as outlined in the concept note, i.e. with an Executive Council, Advisory Committee Secretariat and working parties. As an alternative to the Council we would suggest that the FAO should consider getting more involved in digital discussions already under way in Geneva.

In the event that the Digital Council was to proceed, its members should be solely digital experts (e.g. data management, technology development, sales/distribution, legal, infrastructure/telecoms, software/apps) rather than government/political representatives. Any recommendations from such a council should be non-binding and the results of the work should be referred to the appropriate IO committee, which may or may not be based in the FAO, depending on the issue under discussion.

In any event New Zealand would appreciate further information on how the proposed Council would be funded, and on the full range of implications for member countries.

English translation below

Pregunta orientativa 1: ¿Cuáles son los posibles puntos de partida para que el gobierno aborde los desafíos y promueva el desarrollo de la agricultura digital? ¿Cree usted que los desafíos globales identificados son incuestionables? En su opinión, ¿qué se debería añadir o suprimir?

Se entiende que un desafío global que podría agregarse se vincula con la generación de mecanismos de apropiación y adecuación de las tecnologías globales a las necesidades particulares de los países, sin dejar de tomar en cuenta los principios rectores en que se basan. Es por ello que es importante que el Consejo pueda bregar por el correcto uso de estas tecnologías, tanto para garantizar la sostenibilidad en la producción agropecuaria, como su uso en los diversos eslabones de la cadena.

De igual modo, se considera necesario incluir referencias a los desafíos vinculados al fortalecimiento institucional a través, por ejemplo, de la promoción de una mayor articulación intra-gubernamental, y al desarrollo y/o mejora de los servicios de investigación ligados a la innovación y desarrollo de tecnologías. Asimismo, se entiende que la inversión en la juventud, un grupo en crecimiento especialmente en los países en desarrollo y emergentes, posibilitaría su inclusión en el sector agrícola.

Con relación a los retos señalados en la Guía de esta pregunta, se considera que podría agregarse en el punto relativo a “Alfabetización digital insuficiente y desarrollo de nuevas capacidades", la necesidad de capacitación no sólo para la mano de obra agrícola sino también para el sector privado en general, e incluso para los técnicos gubernamentales.

Por otra parte, y en cuanto al punto relativo al "Acceso inadecuado a los recursos financieros", se entiende relevante considerar herramientas destinadas a promover incentivos para las empresas emergentes y los emprendedores, así como para fortalecer el empleo joven.

Por último, se estima con relación al punto "Infraestructuras inadecuadas", que habría que hacer mención a la extensión y difusión de la red de fibra óptica de cada país, por ser éste un medio de transmisión mucho más rápido, eficiente y barato que la transmisión satelital. A ello habría que agregar la cuestión de la brecha digital entre los países y la necesidad de encontrar mecanismos para mitigarla. La difusión de las plataformas digitales innovadoras corre en paralelo a la extensión de la fibra óptica a las localidades pequeñas, donde en general viven los agricultores.

Pregunta orientativa 2: ¿Cómo puede la creación del Consejo Digital superar las numerosas barreras para la adopción de estas tecnologías?¿Cree usted que los principios indicados son incuestionables y abordan las necesidades para superar las barreras? En su opinión, ¿qué se debería añadir o suprimir?

En primer lugar, se destaca la coincidencia con las recomendaciones sobre medios para superar las barreras para la adopción de las nuevas tecnologías. Se estima subrayar la necesidad de poner énfasis en que dichas recomendaciones se adapten a la realidad de cada mercado agrícola.

Por otra parte, se considera que el Consejo de Agricultura Digital debería velar no sólo por el acceso igualitario a la tecnología sino fundamentalmente para que su uso sea para fines productivos. En este sentido se vuelve imprescindible la premisa de reglamentar el uso de la tecnología y el conocimiento promoviendo a través de políticas públicas y del financiamiento, tanto privado como de la comunidad internacional, el buen uso de las mismas.

La prioridad debería estar puesta, por ejemplo, en maquinaria y sensores que monitoreen los suelos y el clima con el foco en el mediano y el largo plazo. Hoy en día existen sensores de  humedad, de horas de sol, de temperatura, de minerales del suelo, etc., que permiten descargar la información en los teléfonos celulares. De igual forma, existen aplicaciones que pueden verificar la trazabilidad de los productos, e incluso podrían vincular a los productores con los distribuidores, proveedores y consumidores, permitiéndoles un incremento en sus beneficios. Estas tecnologías generan una contribución tanto al desarrollo del comercio electrónico como a la evolución de los locales de venta físicos.

Pregunta orientativa 3: En su opinión, ¿Considera que las funciones identificadas para el Consejo Digital son adecuadas para hacer frente a los desafíos de los sistemas alimentarios antes mencionados? ¿Cree usted que esta tabla vincula con claridad las funciones del Consejo Digital con las tres carencias clave del ecosistema? ¿Qué otras funciones políticas debería desempeñar el Consejo Digital para cumplir su mandato? ¿Cómo concibe este papel?

Se entienden adecuadas las funciones identificadas para el Consejo Digital. Se concuerda con potenciar la digitalización como uno de los medios para incrementar la producción y productividad agrícola, al mismo tiempo que se promueve un uso eficaz y eficiente de los recursos, se incluye mano de obra y se mejoran las condiciones de vida. Sin perjuicio de ello, se sugiere incorporar una discusión sobre ética de las innovaciones, sobre todo las que hagan uso de grandes cantidades de datos ("big data") y de inteligencia artificial, cuestiones que se relacionan con el diseño de los algoritmos y con el uso de dichas tecnologías.

Por otra parte, se considera que el rol del Consejo debería orientarse a la generación de guías y recomendaciones, el fomento del financiamiento sostenible y la asistencia técnica a través de la cooperación entre países, con una estructura ágil que cuente con la participación tanto del sector público como del sector privado.

Pregunta 4: ¿Qué estructura de gobernanza debería implantarse para que el Consejo pueda cumplir su propósito? En su opinión, ¿cree que el escenario de gobernanza propuesto es políticamente viable?

Sobre la estructura de gobernanza del Consejo, se debería definir con mayor detalle el órgano de seguimiento y evaluación cuya creación se prevé. 

Por otra parte, se destaca la importancia de generar niveles más altos de cooperación entre los países, capacitación y sobre todo financiamiento para la incorporación de infraestructura, tecnología hard y soft, y diseñar un sistema de planificación estratégica conjunta que evalúe y monitoree sus progresos.

Question 1. What are the potential entry points for government to address challenges and foster the development of digital agriculture? Do you think the global challenges highlighted are conclusive?  According to you, what should be added or removed?

It is understood that a global challenge that could be added is linked to the creation of mechanisms of ownership and adaptation of global technologies to the particular needs of countries, while taking into account the guiding principles on which they are based. This is why it is important that the Council can work towards the correct use of these technologies, both to ensure sustainability in agricultural production and its utilization in the entire food chain.

Similarly, including references to the challenges related to institutional reinforcement through -for example- the promotion of greater intergovernmental collaboration, and the evolution and/or improvement of research services linked to innovation and technological development are deemed necessary. Additionally, it is understood that investing in youth -an emerging group especially in developing and emerging countries-, would enable their inclusion in the agricultural sector.

Regarding the potential challenges outlined in the Discussion Guide, the need for training -not only for farm labour but also for the private sector in general, and even for governmental technicians- could be added to “Inadequate digital literacy and new skills development”.

On the other hand, and regarding the challenge "Inadequate access to financial resources", considering those tools aimed at promoting incentives for emerging companies and entrepreneurs, as well as for boosting youth employment, is deemed relevant.

Finally, with regard to the challenge "Inadequate infrastructures", extending the optic fibre network in each country -a much faster, more efficient and cheaper transmission medium  than satellites- should also be mentioned. Adding the issue of the digital divide among countries, and the need to find mechanisms to mitigate this gap, would also be convenient. The dissemination of innovative digital platforms runs parallel to the expansion of optic fibre across small towns, where farmers usually live.

Question 2. How can the establishment of the Digital Council address the numerous barriers to adoption of these technologies? Do you think the principles highlighted are conclusive and address the needs for overcoming the barriers?  According to you, what should be added or removed?

First, it is worth noting the coincidence with the recommendations on ways to overcome the barriers to the adoption of new technologies. It is important to stress the need to adapt these recommendations to the reality of each agricultural market.

On the other hand, the Digital Council should ensure not only an equal access to technology, but also its major use for productive purposes. In this regard, the premise of regulating the use of technology and knowledge is essential, promoting the good use through public policies and financing, both from the private sector and the international community.

Priority should be given, for example, to machinery and sensors that monitor soils and climate with a mid-term and long term focus. Nowadays a broad range of sensors is available: they can monitor -among others- humidity, hours of sunshine, temperature, or oil minerals and the information recorded can be downloaded to cell phones. Similarly, there are applications that can verify the traceability of products, and could even link producers with distributors, suppliers and consumers, allowing them to increase their profits. These technologies contribute to both the development of e-commerce and the evolution of physical stores.

Question 3: Do you think that the roles identified for the Digital Council are suitable for facing the food systems challenges outlined above? Do you think the table clearly matches the roles of the Digital Council to the three key ecosystem gaps?  What other political roles should the Digital Council fulfil to address its mandate? How do you envision this role?

The roles identified for the Digital Council are considered appropriate. Boosting digitalization is certainly one of the tools to increase agricultural production and productivity, while promoting an effective and efficient use of resources, involving labour and improving living conditions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, incorporating a discussion on innovation ethics -especially for those technologies making use of large amounts of data ("big data") and artificial intelligence, topics related to algorithm design- would be desirable.

On the other hand, the role of the Council should be geared towards the development of guidelines and recommendations, the promotion of sustainable financing and technical assistance through cooperation among countries, with a flexible structure involving both the public and private sectors.

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?

Regarding the governance structure of the Council, the envisaged monitoring and evaluation organism should be defined in more detail.

On the other hand, enhancing cooperation among countries, training and -especially- funding for new infrastructures and hard and soft technology is considered very important. Designing a joint strategic planning system that assesses and monitors its progress is also deemed relevant.

After consulting with colleagues at our Ministries, we would like to put the following comments forward:

• Developing digital approaches in agriculture is something we are pursuing in the UK through Transforming Food Production and with industry through Food and Drink Sector Council

• Digital solutions and technological innovations in agriculture will be a key part of the solution to feeding a growing global population. They can unlock the potential of farming by improving productivity as well as using resources more sustainably and reducing environmental impact. For example, achieving ‘end to end supply chains’: applying digital/artificial intelligence/ block chain approaches/data embedded bar codes to drive productivity, efficiency and traceability through the entire supply chain, provide sustainability and nutritional data to consumers and reduce food waste.

• We will want to ensure that direction of travel and any international systems international systems draw on the systems and progress we are making in this area, and that such developments are both secure and compliant with relevant data protection regulations.

• However, the devil will be in the detail, and in the ability to resource the council. Research by DAI for USAID looking at 10 agri-tech/digital ‘hubs/platforms’ found that a key driver of success and sustainability is having the significant resources in place to actively curate content, and match the right content to different groups. One of their messages was that hubs that rely on self-reporting don’t last.

FIAN International submits the following comments to the concept note concerning the establishment of an International Digital Council:

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

• Structural inequalities and discrimination are the main causes of hunger, malnutrition and violations of the human right to food and nutrition (RtFN) worldwide. These are determined and reflected by power imbalances between different actors in society. Any development of digital agriculture needs to acknowledge that digital technologies are deployed in contexts of structural inequalities and discrimination. Therefore, such developments must address the digital divide – which has, among others, rural and gender dimensions – and at the same time ensure that improved access to and use of digital technologies and (digitized) information is part of a coherent set of policies aimed at overcoming the structural causes for hunger and malnutrition, such as unequal distribution of land and other natural resources; gender, race, ethnic and other forms of discrimination; lack of protection of rural people’s (peasants, indigenous peoples, small-scale fishers, pastoralists etc.) agrarian,  pastoral,  forestry,  fisheries, and livestock systems; environmental destruction; corporate-controlled food systems; and discrimination against territorial food markets.
• While presenting some potential benefits, digital technologies and their application entail the risk of deepening existing inequalities and creating new forms of dispossession. For instance, digitalization of land and land administration data, as well as automatized land transactions using blockchain technology and smart contracts risks facilitating land grabbing. In addition, digital technologies are used to increase surveillance of farm workers as well as food processing and retail facilities, reducing their space to freely associate in trade unions and struggle for their labor and human rights. Another example is the sequencing of genetic information, which is happening at a fast pace, and which, in combination with patents on genetic sequences/native traits, undermines peasants’ and indigenous peoples’ rights over their seeds, and poses additional threats to the protection of their knowledge, innovations and practices. Without adequate and effective regulatory frameworks, the digitalization of food and agriculture therefore risks to consolidate, or even deepen, existing inequalities and injustices.
• The concept note should further acknowledge that the information and communications technology (ICT) sector and its ownership structure are highly concentrated. The fact that a small number of corporations hold oligopolies or even monopolies over digital platforms, data flows and digital infrastructure constitutes an important challenge to realize the potential opportunities of digital technologies, in particular for marginalized groups and developing countries.
• The concept note rightly points to data security and privacy issues as important concerns in the context of digitalization of food and agriculture. However, it should acknowledge that models based on the exclusive ownership of data and digital information as well as their use are not the only response to overcome existing challenges, and may not be the best option to serve the achievement of the RtFN and connected human rights, such as indigenous peoples’ rights, the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, women’s rights, as well as environmental rights. Approaches that are based on collective rights to access and use data, as well as transparency,  need to be developed as well because they can provide solutions that prioritize the public interest and communities’ wellbeing (“Bien vivir”), while ensuring broader participation in decision-making and in the potential benefits of digital technologies.
• We miss a reference in the concept note to the environmental and health concerns of digitalization. Debates on the potentials and risks of digitalization, including in the proposed International Digital Council should take into account the large environmental impacts related to the manufacture and use of ICT/AI hardware (e.g. micro-chips, semiconductors, liquid crystal displays, mobile phones, computers, batteries, etc.), which include  impacts  from  mining,  emissions  of  volatile  compounds,  acid  fumes,  solvents  and  metals  into  the  air  and  water,  high  energy  consumption,  waste  generation/disposal   and   greenhouse   gas   emissions   from   transportation and storage. It should further recognize the growing body of studies pointing to health risks related to technologies such as 5G.

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

• FIAN considers that the proposed Digital Council should be established within the UN system, and its mandate and principles be based on the UN Charter as well as the international human rights framework. Given that its focus will be on food and agriculture, it should contribute to the realization of the RtFN, in accordance with the FAO and CFS mandate. The proposed Digital Council should further be clearly anchored in a human rights-based accountability framework.
• The proposed Digital Council should recognize, in its composition, principles and ways of working, the protagonist role of small-scale food producers as well as those most affected by hunger and malnutrition, and other marginalized groups. The Council should be built on the principle of self-determination, which means that peoples have the right to decide which technologies they need and want.

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

• FIAN considers that the proposed Digital Council should build on the increasing scientific and political consensus that a transformative change of food systems is needed to address the social, environmental and food crises that the world is facing. Digital technologies can play a role in supporting the transformation of food systems, but they will not do so automatically. The proposed Council should provide guidance for technologies and regulatory frameworks that advance the RtFN and connected rights such as women’s rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, labor rights and environmental rights. In order to do so, the proposed Council should have the following roles:

• Track and analyze ICT developments that are relevant for food and agriculture.
• Assess impacts of different digital technologies, in particular their impact on the rights of small-scale food producers and marginalized groups, as well as their capacity to develop sustainable and just food systems based on agroecology. The proposed Council should help identifying technologies that present opportunities, but also those that entail risks, and may be detrimental to advance the RtFN and food system transformation based on agroecology, as well as those which entail the risk of consolidating and even deepen marginalization and injustice.
• When assessing digital technologies and their impacts, the proposed Digital Council should take into account the socio-politic and economic context in which digital technologies are applied, including existing power imbalances between different actors in society, structural inequalities, discrimination based on gender, race, ethnic and other grounds, etc.
• The proposed Digital Council should gather the views of different actors, placing a particular emphasis on the needs and aspirations of small-scale food producers and marginalized groups, in order to identify and contribute to develop technologies, digital platforms and infrastructure that are accessible to these groups and serve to advance their rights.
• Based on its assessments, the proposed Council should provide guidance to states on which digital technologies as well as public policies related to digital platforms, data flows and storage, and digital infrastructure may serve best the advancement of RtFN and connected rights; as well as on the regulatory frameworks required to ensure outcomes that are conducive to the realization of the RtFN and human rights, the public interest and the protection and regeneration of nature.
• The proposed Digital Council should put forward norms and principles that should guide research and development, in particular public research, as well as the use/application of digital technology to advance the RtFN and agroecology.
• The proposed Council should further explore the potential of innovative approaches that are based on collective rights to access and use of data to provide solutions that prioritize public interest and ensure broader participation in the potential benefits of digital technologies.

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

• As stated before (see question 2), FIAN considers that the proposed Digital Council should be established within the UN system, and its mandate and principles be based on the UN Charter as well as the international human rights framework. Given that its focus will be on food and agriculture, it should contribute to the realization of the RtFN, in accordance with the FAO and CFS mandate. The proposed Digital Council should further be clearly anchored in a human rights-based accountability framework. This requires, among others that there is a clearly defined mechanism of how it will interact with the UN and regional human rights systems, including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, among others. As stated before (see question 2), the proposed Digital Council should recognize, in its composition, principles and ways of working, the protagonist role of small-scale food producers as well as those most affected by hunger and malnutrition, and other marginalized groups. The Council should be built on the principle of self-determination, according to which people have the right to decide which technologies they need and want. This requires to ensure adequate participation of organizations of small-scale food producers and those most affected by hunger and malnutrition.
• Applying an accountability framework based on human rights, the proposed Digital Council should consider states as duty bearers that are accountable to the rights holders (the people). If other actors participate in the Council, they would do so as third parties. The different roles and responsibilities of different actors need to be clarified, and the Council should take into account power imbalances between different actors (e.g. agrifood corporations and small-scale food producers). This is particularly important in the context of digitalization due to the high concentration in the ICT sector and its ownership structure.

Digital technologies are obviously transforming agriculture and the food system for the better. Artificial Intelligence, data analytics, internet, mobile applications and digitally-delivered services have definitely increased and brought up innovation in the agriculture sector. Sustainability, efficient use of resources and employment and entrepreneurial opportunities have been attained, which result in increased agriculture production and productivity: Thus bringing up the commercialization of the agriculture sector. An International Digital Council is vital to assist all harness the opportunities presented by digitalization of agriculture.

Government, non-government and private organisations are involved in the agriculture sector and rural development, and the council should allow these entities to work together to give better service to the farming communities globally. The agriculture sector would be advantaged by enhanced efficiency, inter-connectivity of all entities involved and better and improved monitoring and evaluation.

As a monitoring and evaluation expert, digitalization emerges enhancement of agricultural and rural development through improved information and communication processes. A system applied to retrieve information and knowledge for better decision-making should have ability to produce accurate, complete, consistent, valid, easily retrievable, unique and legitimate date. With monitoring and evaluation tools, lessons and recommendations to decisions are easily achievable. Trend and reflection of the "true" agriculture sector development can be observed.

All in all, the council should strongly include and involve the monitoring and evaluation as part for ability to provide recommendations and lessons to the involved stakeholders and entities involved in the agriculture sector and rural development for present and future implementation; and oversight of the activities of the processes different stages of the sector.

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?

Renforcer l'infrastructure numérique nationale afin de failiter l'accès du monde rural aux outils numériques.

Créer des plateformes numériques prenant en compte les langues locales

Accentuer l'utilisation des drones dans tous les domaies agricoles

Cartographies des spéculations par zone ago écologique.

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

Réduire l’écart numérique avec le monde rural.

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

RAS

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

Prendre en compte les réalités nationales et ne pas tout uniformiser.

Veuillez ajouter tout autre commentaire ou contenu pertinent qui devrait selon vous figurer dans la note conceptuelle.

RAS

What are the potential entry points that would enable governments to address the challenges and promote the development of digital agriculture?

Strengthening the national digital infrastructure to facilitate the access of rural populations to digital tools.

Creating digital platforms taking into account local languages

Increasing the use of drones in all agricultural fields

Mapping of speculations by agro-ecological zone

How can the creation of the Digital Council help to remove the many barriers that prevent the adoption of these technologies?

Reducing the digital gap with the rural world.

Do you think that the roles assigned to the Digital Council are appropriate to address the food system challenges described above?

Nothing to report

What governance structure should be put in place to ensure that the Council can fulfill its mission?

Taking into account national realities and not standardizing everything.

Please add any other relevant comments or content that you think should be included in the concept note.

Nothing to report

English translation below

Q1 : Quels sont les points d'entrée potentiels qui permettraient aux gouvernements de relever les défis et de favoriser le développement de l'agriculture numérique?

Renforcement des infrastructures numériques

Utilisation des plateformes de téléphonies mobiles pour l’information et la sensibilisation du monde rural (information agro climatique, cash transfert, distribution d’engrais, de semences, informations sur les marchés, etc)

Utilisation des dromes pour la surveillance des champs contre les attaques des nuisibles (oiseaux, criquets, chenilles légionnaires, etc) et le traitement phytosanitaire, l’application des engrais

Utilisation des données GPS pour localiser les zones de pâturage et surveiller les animaux sur les parcours

Q2 : Comment la création du Conseil numérique peut-elle contribuer à lever les nombreux obstacles à l'adoption de ces technologies?

Le conseil numérique peut faciliter :

l’accès au financement pour développer les technologies numériques en faisant du plaidoyer auprès des bailleurs de fonds

l’accès des petits producteurs aux technologies numériques en encourageant leurs subventions par les gouvernements

la formation des acteurs sur l’utilisation et la maintenance des technologies numériques en encourageant la création des centres de formation

la recherche-développement sur les technologies numériques en suscitant des programmes de recherche thématiques

Q3. Pensez-vous que les rôles assignés au Conseil numérique sont appropriés pour faire face aux défis des systèmes alimentaires décrits ci-dessus?

Oui, mais aux rôles cités, je suggère d’ajouter des rôles de coordination et de suivi-évaluation de l’impact de la numérisation du secteur agricole sur la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle.

Un atelier international permettra de passer en revue les différents rôles en travaux de groupe et en plénière à partir de la liste exhaustive des activités. Le conseil doit travailler à responsabiliser les acteurs au niveau local pour plus d’efficacité

Q4 : Quelle structure de gouvernance convient-il mettre en place pour que le Conseil puisse remplir sa mission? Estimez-vous que le scénario de gouvernance proposé est politiquement réalisable?

Je pense que le scénario proposé est politiquement réalisable car il s’inspire déjà d’instances existantes. Il prend aussi en compte différentes échelles (mondiale, régionale, nationale, locale).

Q1 : What are the potential entry points that would enable governments to address the challenges and promote the development of digital agriculture?

Strengthening of digital infrastructures

Use of mobile phone platforms for rural information and awareness raising (agro-climatic information, cash transfer, distribution of fertilizers, seeds, market information, etc.)

Use of drones for field surveillance to control pest attacks (birds, locusts, armyworms, etc.) and phytosanitary treatment, fertilizer application

Use of GPS data to locate grazing areas and monitor animals on rangelands.

Q2 : How can the creation of the Digital Council help to remove the many barriers that prevent the adoption of these technologies?

The digital Council can facilitate:

access to funding to develop digital technologies by advocating with donors

access to digital technologies for small producers by encouraging their subsidization by governments

training of stakeholders on the use and maintenance of digital technologies by fostering the creation of training centres

research and development on digital technologies by stimulating thematic research programmes.

Q3. Do you think that the roles assigned to the Digital Council are appropriate to address the food system challenges described above?

Yes, but, besides the roles mentioned, I suggest additional functions of coordination and monitoring and evaluation of the impact of digitization in the agricultural sector on food and nutritional security.

An international workshop would review the different roles in group work and plenary from the full list of activities. The Council must work to empower actors at the local level for greater effectiveness.

Q4 : What governance structure should be put in place to ensure that the Council can fulfill its mission? Do you consider the proposed governance scenario to be politically feasible?

I think that the proposed scenario is politically feasible because it is already based on existing bodies. It also takes into account different scales (global, regional, national, local).

English translation below

Уважаемые коллеги,

я  предлагаю рассмотреть следующие  предложения:

1. Разработать четкие правила формирования  состава Совета  (отбор членов  Совета с учетом регионов  и  их периодическая ротация), которые должны быть четко расписаны и строго соблюдены. Ни одна страна не должна занимать диктующую позицию или группы стран не должны создавать картель.

2. Разработать четкие принципы формирования финансов Совета (например, членские взносы 0,001% ВВП страны) и поддержки развивающихся стран в цифровизации (развитые страны пользуются продукцией сельского хозяйства, развивающихся стран).

3. Вопрос 3. Роль 2. Мониторинг процесса цифровизации.         

Совет: совместно с Правительством стран  может осуществлять мониторинг процесса цифровизации, в соответствующей стране.

С уважением,

Ы. Абдурасулов,

проф. (Кыргызстан)

Dear colleagues,

I propose to consider the following suggestions:

1. Develop clear rules for the formation of the composition of the Council (selection of Council members taking into account the regions and their periodic rotation), which should be clearly scheduled and strictly observed. No country should take a dictating position or groups of countries should not create a cartel.

2. Develop clear principles for the formation of the Council’s finances (for example, membership fees of 0.001% of the country's GDP) and support for developing countries in digitalization (developed countries use agricultural products of developing countries).

3. Question 3. Role 2. Monitoring the digitalization process.

Advice: together with the Government of the countries, it can monitor the digitalization process in the respective country.

Respectfully,

Y. Abdurasulov,

Professor. (Kyrgyzstan)