Day 1: Major challenges from a policy legal and ethical perspective, preventing smallholder farmers benefiting from data sharing
Which major gaps and challenges would you identify in the current scenario from a policy, legal and ethical perspective, which prevent smallholder farmers and communities from benefiting from data-driven agriculture?
1a: Challenges related to accessing data
1b: Challenges related to sharing data
Please focus on the policy, legal and ethical challenges. State the major challenges in a concise and general way, but if possible provide specific examples and say which actors are involved (who benefits, who doesn’t, which actors are perceived as not fulfilling their role).
Focus on the challenges at this stage, not the possible solutions.
Quelles sont les principales lacunes et difficultés identifiées dans le scénario actuel d'un point de vue politique, juridique et éthique, qui empêchent les petits agriculteurs et les communautés de tirer parti de l'agriculture axée sur les données?
1a: Défis liés à l'accès aux données
1b: Défis liés au partage de données
Veuillez-vous concentrer sur les défis politiques, juridiques et éthiques. Énoncez les principaux défis de manière concise et générale, mais si possible, donnez des exemples précis et indiquez quels acteurs sont impliqués (qui en bénéficie, qui ne le fait pas, quels acteurs sont perçus comme ne remplissant pas leur rôle).
Focus sur les défis à ce stade, pas les solutions possibles.
Cuáles son los mayores vacíos y retos que Usted identifica en el escenario actual desde una perspectiva política, legal y ética, que impiden a pequeños agricultores y comunidades beneficiarse de la agricultura basada en datos?
1a: Retos relacionados con el acceso a los datos
1b: Retos relacionados con compartir los datos
Por favor enfóquese en los retos políticos, legales y éticos. Mencione los mayores retos de manera concisa, y de ser posible, de ejemplos específicos y mencione qué actores están involucrados (quiénes se benefician, quiénes no y qué actores se consideran que no cumplen del todo con su rol)Concéntrese en los retos y no en dar posibles soluciones.
1. There seems to be a shift from the glorification of open data to the pragmatism of shared data. These should not be seen as exclusive. In some cases, we may not want to lose the unique benefits of open data: transparency and accountability (in governance); replicability, verifiability and efficiency (in research); and democratised access (for social and economic development). But we also need to understand better in which contexts actors occupying different positions in agricultural value chains are incentivised to protect, share or open their data with others.
2. From the comments above, it seems apparent that there is a need to explore and experiment with new ideas around data ownership, control and co-operation. See, for example, this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3093683 which argues for data to be thought of as labour. We are making a modest attempt to explore the effects of (open) data intermediaries, particularly as they relate to the "economic ownership" rights of smallholder farmers in Ghana as both consumers and sources of data. Comments welcome: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IyciMWsavSnhYXRUz7RaPM_ZxttMbFtBPVbp....
3. The refrain for the inclusion of those whose lives we purportedly seek to improve -- smallholder farmers -- is unsurprising. The question is: Why, if we are so often reminded to consult farmers, it does not happen?
Why are farmers not consulted and included in decision making that impacts them?
In my opinion, this is the outcome of prevailing economic systems that have moulded the social structures and mores for farmers in most communities. For example, laws for inheritance of land in agrarian societies are aimed more at disaagregating farmers even at the family level than aggregating them. There were exceptions, for example, in the Inca system where land was owned by the state, the religious organisation and the community (not individually). Labour was the capital contributed to the society which was econmically based around trade and sustainable, subsistence based community farming. Apparently the entire community presided by the head of the community (or family) was involved through contributing labour in the decision making. We see similar structures and social mores in pastoral societies.
In India, where at one time when a village was considered an economic, self sustained entity, there was a Panchayati system where decisions were made by the community lead by more or less five leaders (hence the term "panchayat"; panch meaning five). Today, while this system exists, its real value in decison making about the village has become facile.
When agriculture becomes market oriented and markets are globalised, decision making becomes complex. The farmer is technically only one actor in this system. Practically, the consumer is the most important entity making decisions for the market. Let us look at GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) certification required for participation in European agricultural commodities markets. It is the consumer who decides what are good agricultural practices and what information is needed to be assured that the practices they demand are provided. Either the farmer agrees to provide this information or is denied participation. There is no need from the consumers perspective to negotiate the information needed from farmers. This is a power based relationship. If one farmer or even farmer group does not provide the data, the consumer goes to another alternate producer who provides the data and information.
While this does not mean I agree that farmers should not be included, I am just pointing out what in my opinion are the reasons for their non-inclusion. Market driven agriculture and globalised agricultural market diminish the role of an individual farmer to make decisions on what, how and when he/she needs to provide data and how it will be used. If we want farmers to be included, we will need to change marketing structures. For example, if policy promotes local farmers markets rather than supermarkets, farmers automatically get involved in decison making about data and information they want or need to share.
There is no doubt that there is a power asymmetry
between farmers and large agribusinesses.With wireless sensors on tractors
monitoring or dictating every decision a farmer makes(from when to plant the
crops and irrigate them,to the quantity and timing of applying pesticides to
the precise day to harvest) big agribusinesses can aggregate large quantities
of previously proprietary farming data enabling them a privileged position and
that means less autonomy for the farmers.
Farmers don’t really know the true value of their
data.Many of them are unaware of the extent to which their data get
stored,traded and analysed for future use.In other cases they don’t even give
their consent for the data to be collected,processed and futher used.
Most small farmers have little use for precision
farming as these technologies are mostly used to industrial farms.
And what about policies and contacts between farmers
and agribusinesses? Most of the farmers don’t have the information and
knowledge.They are more interested in their production. So many times they are
willing to sign a contact with a company even if the terms aren’t in their favour.
So the question remains:
How can there be a further legal address against
government,big co-operations? What about
binding rules concerning contracts?What about policies?They should have
a more legal base and approach.
In my opinion further legislation with national law is
needed to remedy misuse of data and inform farmers about their rights. Also
international law.
It is certain that the principles of the GDPR are also
applicable to the field of agriculture and farmers. Also the farmers
organisations should play a bigger role to inform and protect the interest and the
rights of the farmers.
Will a regulatory structure like GDPR work in data related to farming, agriculture and Agri-food systems? As I mentioned in my opening text, by design GDPR deals only with three primary areas: personal data, consent for its use, and privacy.
In the paper "Digital and Data-Driven Agriculture: Harnessing the Power of Data for Smallholders" (Reference in Background Note to this E-consultation) the authors consider four streams of data that farmers typically use (access or share) are identified: The first stream is ‘localized’ data generated and collated on the farm for use only on the farm. The second stream is ‘imported’ data generated and collated off the farm, for use on the farm. The third stream is ‘exported’ data generated and collated on the farm for use off the farm. The fourth stream is ‘ancillary’ data generated and collated (on and) off the farm, mainly for use off the farm. The GDPR like regulatory mechanism, if applied in reference to the farmer, would be largely be around the third stream of data. We must remember that the third stream of data has to be collated with other data sourced from other farms and other sources and processed to be useful. With this data shared, the participation of various actors, including that of the farmer, in markets can be more fair and equitable, the quality and safety of the farm produce can be assured and financial services such as mortgages, loans and insurance can be more efficient etc.
The farmer directly or indirectly benefits and is in a symbiotic relationship in sharing the third-stream data. To apply something like GDPR, we will need to identify what is "personal" data related to a farm and its farmer? We will then have to identify which data is used where, how and when? And when used, to identify whether it was lawful or unlawful and damaging to the interests of one, many or all actors? This may not be as practical as GDPR will show in the future.
In my humble opinion, we need structures that enable aggregation of farmers data such as "data cooperatives" which can then negotiate the use and benefits from the data farmers provide. This will of course need regulatory mechanisms to enforce the negotiated contracts. And in addition, we will need a more ethical society which respects all its members and defends the less powerful.
It is very true that farmers are not aware or do not understand the contracts/licences that enter into when adopting new smart farming technologies or machinery. An interesting development that occured in Australia in 2016 was the introduction of Unfair Terms legislation to protect smaller businesses again the terms and conditions imposed by larger companies by their use of standard form contracts that contain terms that are presented on a 'take it or leave it' basis eg with smart farming technologies - farmers enter into these contracts when software is downloaded or farm machinery is turned on. Many of the broad terms of use that involve wide dissemination and sharing of data without full and infomred consent would be considered 'unfair'. For some further detail see: https://theconversation.com/changes-to-contract-laws-could-give-small-farming-businesses-more-control-of-data-and-innovation-69275. The only concern I have is that it places the onus on the farmer to commence an action to have a contract declared unfair - perhaps a fairer way would be contracts containing such unfair and harsh terms - then those terms should be unenforcable. More attention should be paid to the unreasonable terms of use in these smart farming contracts -terms that allow the widespread sharing of data collected without informed consent of the farmer. There are very few examples of clear and transparent terms of use around data sharing in smart farming contracts. Just as the GDPR has introduced a broader notion of consent, there needs to be a broader dialogue with farming communities about their ability to have a say in the way that their farm data is used. Farmers at the very least should be entitled to portabillity rights in relation to their data ie to be able to have their data returned so that they can make use of it themselves in the future. A good example would be a local data co-operative where farmers are able to contribute their data to the local community for the benefit of that local community. While Government data should be made available to its citizens, individuals whether they be farmers/consumers of digital technologies should be made aware of how their data may be used and shared. The onus needs to be placed on the agribusinesses to reveal the way in which they plan to control store and manage data collected in simple easy to understand ways, rather than placing the onus on farmers to be expected to understand the intracies of data contracts.
I completely agree.
I think that this development that occured in Australia in 2016 with the intoduction of Unfair terms legislation to protect smaller businesses against the terms and conditions imposed by larger companies by the use of standard form contacts(with the meaning "take it or leave it") is a very good start.It shows the need smaller businesses to be protected.
Even though in this case the onus is on the farmer, I still believe is a good start,because as you very well pointed,if the contacts contain unfair and harsh terms they should be considered unenforcable.That's why legislation is needed,strong policies and information on behalf of the farmers.
GDPR could be used as a "guide". There is more a broader notion of consent and that means more information for the farmer.Also the right of portability could give more power to the farmers.And of course the huge fines that GDPR impsoses.This could be used also to agrobisunesses via legislation when the terms in a contact are considered unfair.
Then perhaps with the "fear"of fines in legislation agribusinesses should have the onus to reveal the way they control,store and manage data.
Small farmers also often lack a verifiable credit history, making it difficult to get loans from financial institutions, and sometimes forcing them to accept far higher than market rate loans in the time when they are waiting for the harvest.
Through use of the blockchain, a record of the crops they have grown, payments made and received, etc. could give them a "digital" record, whether stored in the blockchain or by other means, which could give lenders a record to look at when considering loans.
Certain cryptocurrencies are even well equipped for micropayments, so farmers could build up a transaction history even for small payments at a local shop.
Access to bank accounts for smallholders
Cell phone based apps could be used to use cryptocurrencies to send an receive money even when the nearest branch-bank is far away. The technology already exists that would allow a farmer to go to a local shop where the shopkeeper is an agent of the bank. On a basic android-based cell phone with camera they can do take a picture of their eye (an iris-scan, much less scary than that phrase sounds) to verify who they are, and without having to memorize any long crypto account number their identity is verified, and they can receive funds sent via a cryptocurrency account. More low tech, if they have a traditional account with a brick-an-mortar bank, no cryptocurrency need be involved, they just access their bank account via this iris-scan ID, and withdraw their funds, with the local shopkeeper recording the transaction. Happy to give more technical details on how this works.
Although m-pesa offers a similar value proposition and may not be worth replacing where it is used over telecom networks, this is a technological leapfrog that could be extremely helpful in places where farmers have no access to banking services.
Again, this builds a financial transaction history which could be helpful to smallholders who have no credit/financial history to show when they are seeking to access finance to buy seed and pay their bills till the harvest comes in.
Smallhoilder farmers may not have access to crop insurance, and if they do, they may have trouble getting insurance companies to pay when crops fail.
Sensors could be placed relatively inexpensively that measure rainfall, and smart contracts (blockchain) could be used to make payouts automatic if in a given month a set level of rainfall that is necessary for a succesful harvest is not met. Thus the farmer does not have to chase the insurance company and fight a long process to be paid, and the insurance company does not have to send claims specialists to verify the condition of the crop.
One of the greatest follies humankind suffers from is the promise that technology will solve a social problem. The issue of use, misuse and abuse of data and information is not just because of technology but because of social, economic and political reasons. And the solutions will not be only technology. As stated in the background note policy influences innovation, diffusion of the innovation till it is mainstreamed and its long term sustainability.
The Internet promised to be a great social and economic leveller. To a large extent it did contribute to fulfill this promise but it also caused new divisions, some of which related to farming and agriculture we are now discussing.
We will need appropriate policies to innovate to using blockchain technology as also its diffusion and mainstreaming. At the moment, even in finance where it potential has been demonstrated, there is significant resistance by the powers that be, the banking sector in its more widespread use. The use of blockchain technolgies at least in the early phase of its application to smallholder farming situations in developing countries may pose significant problems, for example, around connectivity and access to trustworthy applications. The misuse of cryptocurrency after the so called "demonetization" or withdrawal and replacement of legal tender in India is now coming to the fore in India.
Anonymity as is being imagined may not always be good for society. We must not forget that the financial meltdown of 2007-2008 was a result of financial risks being anonymised into derivatives through aggregation. While many got rich from the financial meltdown, the costs of it were borne by the poor not only of the United States of America but the world over. How good will anonymity be if only one poultry farm in ten thousand is the source of Salmonella spread by eggs? Do we condemn all the ten thousand farms?
Blockchain may have superlative promises and potential and therefore let us focus and discuss the policy implications for this technolgy in this E-consultation.