Day 3: Long-term ethical, legal and policy changes needed to move from the current scenario to the desired scenarios
What are the long-term ethical, legal and policy changes that need to happen to move from the current scenario towards the desired scenarios?
Examples:
- Ethical: what are the ethical questions we should make to contribute to increase food and nutrition security and better livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable farmers around the world by harnessing their access to and use of agricultural data? How should our mindset change in the long term about data rights? Should data rights be recognized as human rights? Should we still consider receiving a service in exchange for surrendering data an ethically acceptable business model?
- Legal: what do you think are the best legal approaches to achieve the desired scenarios? How to recognize and implement farmers’ intellectual property rights over their data and traditional knowledge? How should the licensing scenario change?
- Policy: what strategies and priority areas of intervention would you recommend at the policy level? Do you think there should be more governance and by whom? Do you think international agreements could help?
Changements éthiques, juridiques et politiques nécessaires à long terme pour passer du scénario actuel aux scénarios souhaités.
Quels sont les changements éthiques, juridiques et politiques à long terme qui doivent être apportés pour passer du scénario actuel aux scénarios souhaités?
Exemples:
- Éthique: quelles sont les questions éthiques que nous devrions poser pour contribuer à accroître la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle et améliorer les moyens de subsistance des agriculteurs les plus pauvres et les plus vulnérables du monde en exploitant l’accès et l’utilisation des données agricoles? Comment notre état d'esprit devrait-il changer à long terme en ce qui concerne les droits relatifs aux données? Les droits sur les données devraient-ils être reconnus en tant que droits de l'homme? Devrions-nous toujours envisager de recevoir un service en échange de la remise de données, un modèle d'entreprise éthiquement acceptable?
- Juridique: quelles sont selon vous les meilleures approches juridiques pour réaliser les scénarios souhaités? Comment reconnaître et mettre en œuvre les droits de propriété intellectuelle des agriculteurs sur leurs données et leurs savoirs traditionnels? Comment le scénario de licence devrait-il changer?
- Politique: quelles stratégies et domaines prioritaires d'intervention recommanderiez-vous au niveau des politiques? Pensez-vous qu'il devrait y avoir plus de gouvernance et par qui? Pensez-vous que les accords internationaux pourraient aider?
Cuáles son los cambios que se requieren a largo plazo a nivel ético, legal y político para transformar el escenario actual en los escenarios deseados?
Ejemplos:
- Éticos Cuáles son las preguntas éticas que debemos hacernos para contribuir a aumentar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y mejorar las condiciones de vida de los agricultores más pobres y vulnerable, a través de mejorar su acceso y uso de datos agrícolas? Cómo debería cambiar nuestra percepción a largo plazo sobre los derechos sobre los datos? Deberían reconocerse los derechos sobre los datos como derechos humanos? Deberíamos considerar el recibir un servicio a cambio de la entrega de datos como un modelo económico ético aceptable?
- Legal: Cuáles piensa Usted que son las mejores aproximaciones legales para alcanzar los escenarios deseados? Cómo reconocer e implementar los derechos de propiedad intelectual de los agricultores sobre sus datos y conocimiento tradicional? Cómo debería cambiar el escenario actual de las licencias?
- Político: Qué estrategias y áreas prioritarias de intervención recomendaría a nivel político? Cree Usted que debería haber mayor gobernanza y por quién? Cree Usted que acuerdos internacionales puedan ayudar?
We have reached almost the mid-point of this consultation. Valeria has summed up the discussion very competently.
I accept that data driven agriculture and Agri-food systems is not possible without cooperation and collaboration of all actors in and stakeholders of these systems. However, we should not club cooperation with “no competition”. We should be very careful and be specific about “no competition”. Let me explain, all data and data sets collected and collated are notional based on a framework developed by individuals or a group, either with a mandate or without. If we state that there should not be any competition, does this mean that we should not have any change in this framework of data collection? The consequence of “no competition” would mean freezing the framework and with it the data and dataset. This is akin to saying that “Standards” should not change and are set in stone. This, in turn, will block innovation and possible efficiencies emerging from innovations. Farming, agriculture and Agri-food systems are constantly evolving and need continuous change and innovation in data and applications as new needs arise. How then will we cope with this change?
In my opinion, the most efficient way would be to develop platforms that “point” to A. The applications and B. The data needed by these applications for use by the various actors and stakeholders to an Agri-food system. This allows innovation of all three, the data, the applications and the platform itself.
The Platform would be a “Trust Center” for the meta data to individual data providers as also for applications using the data. It will assure trustworthiness, security and, where needed, privacy for both the data and application. The Platform will also function as an “App Store”, something like Apple’s App store, where users can buy both the data and the applications they need. The platform will also prescribe the standards for interoperability, sharing and exchange of data between the applications. These functions of the platform will thus provide an open market for both data and applications and therefore force competitiveness for the benefit of the users who will also get the flexibility through mix and match of interoperable data and applications so necessary in farming and the larger Agri-food system. The platform would be mandated in its functions by the Government. For small holder farmers, who may not be able to afford the use of data and applications or the information services, the Government and other agencies may offer support or subsidies.
Let me explain this further by the “CIARD.RING” led by GFAR. CIARD.RING has been envisaged as a “Trust Center” for agricultural research for development (ARD) related data and information which includes documents as also data sets. It collects and organizes meta-data about data and information repositories not the primary data which is maintained by the repositories themselves. It provides many of the services mentioned above. CIARD.RING encourages development of applications to use ARD information and data.
The “GeoAgri Gujarat” Project, now in development in Gujarat and where I am involved, is based on this concept of a platform as described above. It aims to provide a single window access to all services farmers (overwhelmingly smallholders) in Gujarat need related to their farming. Now, the Government is funding the creation of this platform. The initial data set is being defined by a Project Steering Committee and the applications needed initially are being developed and implemented by the private sector as the GeoAgri Gujarat is expected to be financially self sustaining and is a public-private-community partnership. Initially the data used by GeoAgri is expected to be “owned” by the Government and managed by the Project Steering Committee using private sector services.
"Trust" is at the heart of the digital innovations occuring around the world in many differnent sectors. Trust Centres are an ideal - these may be based around farmer co-operatives, data co-operatives or such data platforms. At the heart of any of the data platform solutions must be careful consideration of the terms of use of the platforms themselves - the "ownership" that is often claimed or asserted over the aggregation of the data deposited is something to which good governance and policy needs to be directed - as how the rights are mediated between Governments, third party and private sectors is ripe for closer examination with the overarching principle of clarifying what rights are really needed in the aggregation - it is positive to see such initiatives being developed
My no competition comment was in no way a recommendation for a statu quo :-) We are always on the way toward something better. What I referred to is the actual situation where institutions (incl. the FAO) do work that already exist (either done by other institutions or by the private sector) and thereby uses resources which could be better utilized. Collaboration instead of redundancy would be another way to put it.
On another stream, I acknowledge that there is a difficult balance between maintaining a standard and improving it, balance that is and will remain difficult, but here again collaboration among the key stakeholders is key. Hope this helps :-)
Thinking of legal/policy changes that are needed to move towards the scenarios we designed yesterday, and considering what we said on the first day about not rushing into regulations, it could be useful to check if some existing framework that sets guidelines can be a good basis.
Both on the first day and today the GDPR has been mentioned on the one hand as a useful framework and on the other hand as something that concerns only personal data and therefore not sufficient. Another EU document could be more useful for us: the “EU Code of conduct on agricultural data sharing by contractual agreement”, drafted by “a coalition of associations from the EU agri-food sector” led by COPA COGECA. The aim of this code of conduct is to “ensure that data-sharing leads to a prosperous agri-food chain bringing benefits for all”.
Link: http://www.copa-cogeca.be/img/user/files/EU%20CODE/EU_Code_2018_web_version.pdf
This document is not conceived as a legal document and compliance is voluntary.
I think it’s interesting to check a few points against some features of the scenarios envisaged yesterday:
1. “This Code recognises the data originator’s right, whether they are a farmer or another party, to benefit from and / or be compensated for the use of data created as part of their activity. It also recognises the need to grant the data originator a leading role in controlling the access to and use of data from their business and to benefit from sharing the data with any partner that wishes to use their data.”
Yesterday we didn’t delve much into what rights we expect the farmer to have on their data, but Juanita spoke about recognizing the importance of the farmer as provider of data and Uchenna highlighted that ownership and rights related to digital agriculture must be balanced to protect the interests of smallholder farmers. Besides the Code is not very prescriptive regarding ownership, which, as someone observed in the e-discussion, might limit the possibility of working with data. And the idea that the farmer should benefit from data sharing underlies all the scenarios described yesterday.
2. “Access to data, be it in read-only or fully editable modes, should be strictly audited and any transfer or change to the data should be fully traceable, e.g. accompanied by metadata about the author and modification”. “Data originators should be granted appropriate and easy access and be able to retrieve their attributed (‘own) data further down the line”.
These points could be useful for those aspects of the scenarios that concern transparency (and e.g. the blockchain) and the idea that all farmers data is stored somewhere and always accessible to them.
3. “In order to facilitate data sharing, this Code encourages partners in the agro-food chain to set up tools to support decision-making systems for data originators as well as for data users that would allow them to integrate a vast array of data. This should involve different partners of the food chain, in particular data originators, in order to effectively contribute to their development and better respond to their needs.”
This is an interesting paragraph because it shows that the Code wants to facilitate and encourage data sharing, not limit it. And it seems to propose an approach to collaboration on common platforms to “integrate a vast array of data” which seems in line with what was proposed yesterday regarding common platforms, "organized data communities" and building trust.
The EU Code of conduct as discussed provides a useful example of how developing 'best practice' in data sharing can help to build trust in data-driven industry led initiatives. There are some similarities that can be drawn here to the American Farm Bureau's Privacy and Security Principles of Farm Data that was discussed earlier on Day 1. Those principles operate from the basis that farmers own their data. It is important to remind ourselves that (in the absence of specific legisated data rights) there is no 'ownership' of raw farm data until there has been some value adding ie aggregation. However, the value of such principles and codes is that they raise the awareness of what good data contracting may and should look like eg rights of portability, accessibility and consent etc. So reinforcing the fact that farmers should benefit from data sharing, voluntary codes such as this can help both farmers and agri-businesses to ensure that data sharing arrangements are more transparent and equitable. Often in conjunction with such codes, are certification or authetification processes so that those service providers or 3rd parties who comply with the code can signal that fact to their data contributors and this then gives choice to data contributors and this in turn this builds trust. Data sharing tools developed in light of such codes also build trust by ensuring that data is interoperable, machine readible and thus easier to share. Facilitating the sharing of data is the key but it is important to build confidence in famers by building trust in the data sharing arrangements and this will need to come a range of initatives such as farming co-operatives, educative tools and industry codes.
I hate being the one who starts asking about business models but it came to my mind when we started discussing common data platforms. How will these platforms pay for salaries and servers? Should the investments be made by governments or intergoverdmental organisation who want to create a common good, or can we see ways to create revenuw streams on which these platforms can depend?
Indeed a complex terrain and many questions are stil without a full answer:
Public goods vrs private goods
Competition vrs. collaboration
Farmers vrs big companies
Technologies vrs content (data & information)
Social media vrs communication channels
Data collection vrs data usage
Hugo, you are on track on discuss business models.
Bear with me for a somewhat long text to explain.
The area of economics of agricultural information has somehow evaded scientific exploration and discussion. Possibly, because the main discussants have been people interested in ICTs application in the area and so far use of ICTs, data and information in farming and agriculture was nascent.
My estimates of information costs of an agricultural product from input to consumption across the market chain is around 20-25 percent of the final cost of the product. It is more with processed foods considering packaging and advertisement.
Not understanding the economics of agricultural information constrains not only the development of agricultural information systems but also of participating in markets. For example, the cost of maintaining information for segregation, identity preservation and traceability with the commodity across the flow of market chain prevents small holders in developing countries to participate directly in export markets that essential need this information. It affects the farm input supply and access to safe foods as the cost of providing reliable quality and safety related information increases these costs.
Most of the current “business” models of agricultural information services are based on creating a “surplus” from transforming information generated at public cost into a private good. Private extension services take publicly available information, for example fertilizer application rates, a public good information generated by public funded research, for a crop and make it into advice for an individual farmer. The information is then specific to a particular farmer and farm and is a private good by all its characteristics. This economic model simply put is “capitalism” except that the surplus is not the classical labor but information. However, information per se, with the use of modern ICTs, is at a very low cost replicable, non-rival and non-excludable. It cannot be easily “controlled” as “property”. Thus, there are calls for more stringent applications of intellectual property rights, copyright etc. and often masked as infringement of privacy for information and its services.
This also explains many of the statements made in the present consultation and elsewhere that 1. Agricultural business for smallholder farmers is not viable and 2. The “Government” or public sector should bear the cost for the infrastructure and other sub-structures needed for providing these information services.
Following this up logically, the current models of information services generally can, as Yuval Harari opined at Davos recently, lead to digital dictatorships and a dystopia described in Sci-fi novels and movies as they ask for ever increasing control of data and information. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL9uk4hKyg4&feature=youtu.be)
We need a new form of “ Democratic Socialism” if more fair, just and equitable data and information services are desired for all and more so for smallholder farmers simply because almost all information is public “property”. Again, resorting to Sci-fi, this would be a “Star Trek” society where there is no “money” and the society/community bears all costs of living.
Coming back to today’s reality, the business model proposed for the Geo-Agri Gujarat Project mentioned elsewhere is the public-private-community (P-P-C) model. In this project is the Gujarat Government bears the core costs of the information system i.e. the infrastructure and substructures needed such as the “Platform” and “Trust Center”. The rationale is that though the project aims to offer a single window for all services a small farmer needs for farming, ultimately for the underlying dataset the Government is also the largest user of the information that the project generates for governance of agriculture and rural development. And, anyway, it is already spending to collect most of this information. The GeoAgri project systemizes this data and information process and creates value not only through the more efficient process but also through allowing interoperability, sharing and exchange and analyses of “big data” for information used in managing natural resources such as water for irrigation, electricity use, farm inputs and harvest forecasts, financial services and insurance and stability of markets etc. The users of information from Geo-Agri project are many in the public, private (fertilizer, pesticide supplier, finance and insurance, market intermediaries, storage, transport, processors etc.) sector and the community (Religious, Development NGOs etc) sectors. They subscribe for access to data. Telecommunications organizations also indirectly subsidize the GeoAgri project as the small holder farmers get information at less than the “market” price which are partially recovered from their subscribed use of the connectivity. As already described elsewhere in the consultation, the private sector profits from providing value added information services. The Government also benefits beyond the use of information through a much more efficient Agri-food system that increases GDP, reduces food inflation and creates an economic surplus, increased revenue from taxation and reduced subsidization etc.
Current trade and intellectual property laws are unclear as to where the rights to digital technologies start for smallholder farmers, and where they stop. This problem is highlighted in relation to intellectual property law, under which certain data can be seen as exclusive property.
To solve this ethical challenge, legal rights that guarantee open processes and some form of proprietary ownership should be given to small holder farmers, so that they no longer view digital technology as something outside coming to rip them off, but as something that they own, have a stake in, participate and continuously gain from.
It is important to emphasize that as users of digital data, farmers have some form of Users’ rights, which are made up of personal property rights in the copy of a copyrighted work; contractual rights to access works through a service; and exceptions to copyright infringement. All three facets of this right should be protected either by the formulation of exceptions and limitations to current IP regulations and digital rights management laws, specifically designed to meet the requirements of smallholder farmers, or the creation of new forms of IP protection. Flexibilities exist under current international IP treaties which may allow for such.
In order to guarantee wider utilization of digital technology, governments should adopt policies that obligate companies to ensure that smallholder farmers actively participate in the negotiation, development and design of digital agricultural products and processes. Such participation will also help digital agriculture meets the local content requirements adopted in some developed countries.
Clear legal rules regarding the interaction of digital rights with other rights, especially human rights, and obligations under relevant multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements, need to be drawn up.
Interesting discussion is emerging and some useful insights.In line with my comments yesterday of the involvement of farmers and local community, l concur that the approach by the coalition of association of EU agri-food chain that signed on the 23 of April a joint EU Code of Conduct on sharing of agricultural data is a good precedent.
In many developing countries farmers are also grouped into farmers' organisations, any model or scenario should not avoid this key constituency. If discussions and platforms are co-owned by the farmers through their associations, there is sustainability and also local ownership of the emerging models and platforms.
On ethical issues, l believe an emerging scenario should atleast be compliant with GDPR requirements.In that way a lot of ethical issues are avoided. Data rights like any property should be protected and the owner should rightfully hand them.
Legal approaches vary from place to place, l think platforms should be hosted under jurisductions that are not restrictive, however - legal requirements are now transnational i.e DGPR.
Traditional and Indegineous knowledge is a burning theme , the challenge being some of this knowledge isnt documented and an attempt to do so usually infers an ethical breach. Farmers and farming community should reserve the right not to share data they classify either as sensitive or indigenous. There is also a 'caveat' that needs to be placed for those that will access this data, so that its ensured they do know abuse the IP and property rights of the communities that created this information.