Day 2: Desired scenarios for a future where data-driven agriculture is successfully adopted by smallholder farmers

Dear all, wellcome.

My name is Manuel Ruiz Muller, and I´ve accepted the challenge of moderating this Day 2 of our webinar on Desired Scenarios for a Future where Data Driven Agriculture is Successfully Adopted by Smallholder Farmers. 

More precisely, we are requested to reflect on "describing specific desired scenarios for a future where data-driven agriculture is adopted by smallholder farmers and what would success look like in practical terms". 

A few ideas to get the ball rolling: 

Note of caution: I fully realize that smallholder agriculture is as diverse as agrobiodiversity, and  across the board solutions are not possible and may be even damaging to small holder farmers in certain contexts. So our premise is that we realize these differences and always qualify our broader statements or specify context. Just to give an idea: language barriers are often a limiting factor - many smallholder farmers in the Andes for instance are still illiterate ... 

1. When we imagine "scenarios" I would suggest we consider the socio-economic, policy, legal, institutional frameworks and settings which may be seen as "enablers" for data and information flows and different streams - as noted by the Background Paper paper by the organizers.  So, what are the very specific conditions or aspects for each dimension under which we may envision a succesful data driven agriculture scenario?

For instance, we may have a very good enabling policy environment, but poor technological capacities to deliver data - e.g. limited Intenet or phone coverage. Or we may have some excellent delivery platforms, but strong political and legal restrictions. Or we may also have an enabling regulatory framework but poor incentives for small start ups or entrepreneurs to engage in "micro" context data delivery situations ? Is there something we may learn form, for example, micro-credits and the whole Muhammad Yunus story lending to the poor ? 

Maybe we can come up with some form of "model" scenario, in the understanding that country specificities and context vary substantially, particularly in regards to smallholder farmers and their capacities, expectations, interests.

2.  Maybe we can also reflect a bit on what exactly do we consider "success" as. Are we limiting our analysis to increasing production and productivity and assuming this reflects immediately in better livelihoods, increased food security? Are availability of potent data platforms and uptake of tools a measure of success? It might be interesting to distill the concept a little and maybe fine tune a couple of indicators which could serve in this dialogue.  

3.  Finally, I´d like to also propose that we reflect on how "success" on the technological front interplays with cultural values and practices which for many smallholder farmers (e.g. Andean campesinos) are part of a heritage and essential "asset" often (not always) in tension with technological advances (not all forms). As data driven agriculture takes form (at the end of the day it is a technological development), how do we concile its potential with strong culture - which is not static, but dynamic and often receptive of change?  

We can start off with these ideas if you all agree.

Here are also a few references which I´ve found interesting read. Quite short and entertaining too. 

Pierpaoli, E. et al Drivers of agriculture precision technologies adoption: a literature review.  Procedia Technology   8  ( 2013 )  61 – 69   Available at, https://ac.els-cdn.com/S2212017313000728/1-s2.0-S2212017313000728-main.pdf?_tid=f12787db-0a5f-4594-8b92-bffa62413b37&acdnat=1527964064_9ac279873f03d70d772191ca9ac3804b

Mondal, P., Basu. M.  Adoption of precision technologies in agriculture in India and some developing countries: scope present status and strategies. Progress in Natural Science 19 (2009) 659–666 Available at,  https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1002007109000173/1-s2.0-S1002007109000173-main.pdf?_tid=de254c20-ac11-4586-823b-fae3cddb33c9&acdnat=1527964479_625bcc54ce1396ea8bce6b2e206aca42

Roach, J. (2016) Can data driven agriculture help feed a hungry world? Yale Environment 360. Available at https://e360.yale.edu/features/can_data-driven_agriculture_help_feed_a_hungry_world

Sparapani, J. (2017) How bid data and tech will improve agriculture: from farm to table. Available at, https://www.forbes.com/sites/timsparapani/2017/03/23/how-big-data-and-tech-will-improve-agriculture-from-farm-to-table/#4919e1ab5989

Thank you Manuel for the interesting introduction. I see a future functional open data exchange where growers, government, and industry data frofit from each other in an open way. Let me explain how it could look like from my corner of the forest: plant protection. Growers collect data on their crop, their pest status and damage. Growers have access to the database of all available tools worldwide. Growers are empowered to contact the industry and governments to get access to what they need (safe and tools that allow them to trade, ex. non-tariff trade irritants). Government regulators will suppoort growers demand to the plant protection industry for the submission of OECD registration packages. All countries (regulators) with the same need get together and collaborate to assess and eventually register what the growers need. The industry make their intention known and growers can support the building of efficacy data. I could go on for another chapter but I think that at this point, it may be obvious to most that this tranparency of information leads to increased safety, "motivates" the plant proteciton industry to make safe products available where they would normally not, make assessment possible for the regulators who is now swamped by work and even in Germany does not delivr to more than 60% of the needs, allow for trade because growers now have access to all the tools they need to avoid trade irritants, and resistance. This would contirbute to establish a level playing field which is now the biggest blockage for agricutlure to become the economic motor it can be. Again I could go on for a long while but the message is I hope clear. Again, to link thihs to the first day on ehtics, we hvae to move from competition to collaboration. Can we? It does not take much in terms of technology and data, as it is all there, but it takes humm, well, social courage. Do we have it?

La circulation des données necessaires pour l'amelioration de la production et de la productivité agricole me semble t'il doit etre centralisée pour un meilleur controle de la qualité de ces données.

Une structure de recherche, traitement et circulation des données est necessaire. Ceci est valable pour le flux de données descendant chez les producteurs et le feedback et autres données produites chez ces derniers et devant ^etre diffusées.

Mais ceci nest pas aussi facile à mettre en place et demande une bonne reflection car qui gere les donneés gere le pouvoir de construire ou de détruire.

Nous avons essayé ceci par le système d'alerte précoce et d'information sur les marchés pour les producteures agricole. Cette expérience reste encore à améliorer

Is 'data driven agriculture' the same as 'precision agriculture'. The background paper smetimes seems to use the terms as interchangeable, but I am not sure if it is meant that way. Most of the  references that Manuel included in his initial message (thanks) also refer to precision agriculture. It could make quite a difference, 'scenario-wise'. 'Precision agriculture' is often associated with a high level of technology employment, so it would make sense to fodus on early adopters. Data-drives agriculture could also refer to innovations that are within the reach of a larger number of smallholders (like access to credit, selection of the most appropriate ccultivars)As an aside, I think that agricultural innovation was data-driven, long before that data was digital. My father in law was involved in cultivar esting in the Netherlands , and would collect data on crop performance on paper from farmers, to be further processed by clerks in the office of the local branch of the cultivar testing service. The motorcycle was an innovation of that process.

If l may remove my hat as a moderator, first l thank all those who commented and enjoy the submissions so far.

With regards to today's questions, for me l envisage scenarios where farmers have platforms that they access the data they produce. I imagine a situation where with precision agriculture each farmer produce data, if this data can be stored on a shared cloud service that agreggates data from similar farmers. This data can be useful to these farmers.

So l see a need for shared approach, common data themes within farming communities and these clusters of farmers need to be connected if individually produced farm data can be useful beyond the farm walls. 

With developing countries, there is still a need for aggregation of off farm produced data that will be useful to farmers, such as weather data and market related data.

In essence, organised data communities for farmers, common aggregation services, farmers should be able to consume and use that data for decision making. Partnering with service providers will be essential.

Dear participants, thanks for the active engagment and very interesting comments by all. 

I do not pretend to capture the richness of the discussion so far just here, but I do seem to sense some broad common threads and issues which in some way link many of the contributions.

1. The notions of cooperation/collaboration, free flows and exchange of data, and management of data, seem to be at the core of a "data driven" agricultural system (and I mean by "system", concrete examples of small holder agriculture, whatever its features are).

2.  Data driven and precision agriculture should not be conflated; the way I read the background paper, data is one tool which can support what is widely being regarded as "precision agriculture". I don´t have a particular problem with the concepts in general. I do think the concept of "precision agriculture" in the conext of small holder farming can be problematic in terms of its preference for or ficus on efficiency as one of its driving forces. But that may be another interesting discussion some day. I would argue (and prof. Besemer nails it) that data-driven agriculture has alwas taken place albeit not always in the digital and technological revolution and form we seem to envision  as part of our discussions. In fact, and this is food for thought, I would raise the idea that data-driven agriculture may not even need to be associated necessarily with precisision agriculture per se.        

3. The management, platforms, "organized data communities", rapid response, seem to also  be elements which permeate mre than one comment. 

I am afraid I do not speak/read French so Mr. Ahanda Sosthene´s comment I can´t really get into ... maybe someone can summarize in English so wecan integrate it into the discussion. 

Thanks again and will get back in a while. 

Have a good afternoon and morning for others in this region !

Cheers,

Manuel 

In order for smallholder farmers to use appropriately adopt data driven agriculture in the near future, there is need to have these farmers (smallholder farmers) organized in groups or associates and registered in a platform that brings in also big service providers (agro advsiory services, e-market players, agricultural production service providers, smart irrigation services, finance and insurance). The existence of such service providers will create a demand for data services and push the adoption of data driven agriculture. Obvisiously there will be greater need for training especially in sub saharan Africa. As we move into the future, I see greater need for public/private support for expansion of the infrastructure to accommodate the expanding demand for data driven agricultural services. There will  be greater need for a robust legislation and policies to regulate the e-agriculture environment. Success would be (i) when smallholders farmers are better organized and would be willing agree to have their data shared with other actors (provided there is adequate legislation to check abuse) for the good of all actors; (ii) when increasingly more smallholder farmers are using/adopting smart technologies to leverage agricultural production & productivity, and mitigate against climate change effects; and when the public sector (government) starts to play an active  role in negotiating for better services at reasonable and affordable costs and ensure neccesary infrastructure is available to spur the data revolution.

The following principles are necessary for successful adoption of digital agriculure by smallholder farmers in the future:

• Digital technology must be developed by an open impartial and equitable process in which smallholder farmers fully participate
• Data, products and processes for digital agriculture must be context specific, designed to suit the conditions of farmers in poorer countries and improving local crops
• Ownership and rights related to digital agriculture must be balanced to protect the interests of smallholder farmers and create incentives to use and further develop such technologies
• It is necessary to formulate clear legal rules regarding the interaction of digital rights with other rights, especially human rights, and obligations under relevant multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements. Clear thresholds need to be established stating where the rights to digital technologies start for smallholder farmers, and where they stop.

Thanks to all participants for the valuable contributions. I just have a few things to add.

1. With respect to desirable scenarios. Data-driven agriculture can take shape in many ways, and probably there's not one desirable scenario for all contexts, but we should imagine various scenarios. Depending on the needs and values that play a role in a specific contexts, it must be possible to prefer one or the other. (In Europe, for example, farmers may be reluctant to share data, because they are afraid that their competitors will use them; but maybe in other contexts it makes farmers stronger if they share data? I lack knowledge here, but would love to know. Maybe some of you can fill me in here...) 

2. Regarding the concept of 'success', which I find very interesting, I here list impacts ascribed to data-driven farming that I encountered in the literature on ethics of smart farming and that may be good candidates to think about success. Success can  be interpreted in a societal way: it can mean, for example, that farming imposes less of a burden on the environment, that animal welfare at farms is improved, that the production rate of farms goes up and farms will be able to feed more people, that the acceptance of farm products by consumers is improved, that consumers make better food choices (healthier, more environmentally friendly, better for animals), that the autonomy of consumers is fostered, that the chain leading from producer to consumer becomes shorter (for ex. localized in one region),  that food security is fostered, that the profession of farmers becomes attractive again to young people, that empty regions will have more farms and be populated again, that there will be more jobs. But success can also be interpreted from the perspective of individual farms: success can mean surviving as a business, remaining competitive, staying autonomous in the decisions taken at farms, continuing to have satisfying work, having less administrative proving that you live up to the  environmental rules, that there is equal access to technologies needed to realize data-driven agriculture, and maybe more....?  

So, it seems to me that if we want to talk about desirable future scenarios, maybe we should get clearer on the position from which we start to think about it (our background, culture and values, needs) as well as the goals we seek to realize, and the perspective from which we look at the goals (from a societal perspective or as individual farmers). It may be that from a societal perspective we are interested in different goals, than from the perspective of individual farms, although it is also possible that both overlap. Open access may be attractive, for example, to look at whether and to what extent farms contribute to the societal goals (less burden on the environment, more production for more mouths to feed), while individual farmers may not be so keen to share those data with everyone as it may kill their competitive position in the market.

So, what is success? There is, I think, a lot of conflict in our ideas of success, which may support differing conclusions as to how data need to be shared and with whom. It seems to me we need to get clearer on those differences, and maybe create various scenarios that suit them, in order to facilitate shaping innovation strategies in a more informed and reflected way....?

I should share my frame of reference that informs what I think is the future for data driven agriculture for smallholder farmers.  My frame of reference is that digitizing global, regional and local supply chains is a great and new frontier of business opportunity.  Further, that for any such opportunity to be successful it must be focused on serving the needs of the farmer and the farming family.  Without the scale of serving the high number of farmers the low profit margin nature of digital will significantly limit (if not eliminate) any digital agriculture business venture/initiative.  

In addition, the new cryptographic security technology that allows for validation, verification and consensus across global computers is as much a reality now as the law of gravity. Since we know blockchain will be the future it would seem appropriate for us to frame our important discussions about agriculture data in alignment with the three types of blockchains: public, consortia and private.  Briefly, public blockchains are fully decentralized, consortia blockchains are partially decentralized and private blockchains are centralized.   There is a discussion happening now about the merits of each and why one or the other should win and the others lose.  I think the future will include all three and that they will interoperate.    This aligns with CGIAR's promotion of open data (decentralized) when possible but closed data (centralized) as necessary which, to my mind, includes gradations of data (partially decentralized) in between.  Even if one believes blockchain is a fad, the rigor of thinking about authentication, validation, verification and consensus of data for each type of blockchain will add value when architecting any non-blockchain database.         

As we continue to harmonize our farm and farmer data in order to interoperate databases in the cloud for big data analytics, we should focus our thinking on how a database architect would approach creating such a database.  The architect will establish hierarchical data ecosystem parameters.  As such, should our hierarchical starting point be the farm and not the farmer? Is not the farmer simply an important (the most important) variable in the algorithmic equation that improves land productivity and crop quality? If so, how does this help frame the data ecosystem? In addition, while the farmer may be only a subset of data, that hierarchically rolls up into the farm data, our work with blockchains should have the guiding philosophy that farmers have the right to own, control and monetize their own data on any of the three types of blockchains.  This guiding philosophy is in exact alignment with, and written into the 'DNA' code of, blockchain as described by Satoshi Nakamoto who wrote the bitcoin white paper. 

So my "desired scenario for the future" is actually the reality of what has been significant private sector investment and rapidly increasing future investments to deploy blockchain in agriculture.  Given what we know about the exponential scale of technological adoption, in the near(er) term future we can imagine farmers equipped with better decision making tools derived from artificial intelligence that cranks through sensor, UAV, satellite, GIS and other rich data sources.    Finally, my desired scenario also includes civil society providing a healthy and robust counterbalance to the private sector's focus on bottom line profitability.  

In thinking about the scenarios, I am concious that making sense of and extracting value from data on a large screen with powerful tools and a good internet connection is very different to querying and analysing data on a phone screen (a feature phone?). Also, when I am analysing data, I often ask colleagues with specialist skills in statistics or just with the particular tools to help me. So, while we can paint scenarios with various data services, we should also think about the role that intermediaries might play in enabling smallholder farmers to structure, organise and make use of any data that might be available. I imagine local farmer co-operatives or other data intermediaries sharing and offering resources such as large screens and data science skills.

I personally look at a scenerio where every farmer is able to collect on farm data, upload it on a shared platform for aggregation where after is given an appropriate lincense published on the web where the smallholder farmer accesses it when needed. A scenerio when our government will have repositories for farmers data and data related services available all the time. When weather data will be broadcast in a language understood by farmers. When market data will be readily available to the farmer via messaging updates and through tradition media mostly used by farmers. A scenerio where access to external data and sharing among farmers is common place but this is dependent upon all actors from data collectors, aggregators, processors, stewards through data policy makers.

From the discussions so far, in my opinion, we are percolating to a viewpoint that smallhoder farmers will need to cooperate/collaborate to practice and benefit from data driven agriculture. I would go a step further and state that the smallholders need to aggregate in all their functions related to farming. We are all aware that Soviet style collectivisation failed. But there were many aspects of it, for example pooling of all farm resources and division of labour, that were useful and would have been successful if they then had access to the new technologies we now have for data driven agriculture. 

If we use available technologies, we can "virtually" aggregate smallholder farmers into larger producing units without disturbing ownership of land as was done in the Soviet collectives. Virtual aggregation would mean larger scale planning of farmland and cropping cycles, using technologies such as predictive planting for both the most suitable crop and the most suitable crop variety for a particular plot and field. With large scale planning, access and use of farm inputs would be more economical and efficient and outputs, and because of more precise forecast for quantum and schedule and assurance of quality of the farm product, it could be better marketed. In cultivation, the crops can be better monitored and human drudgery eliminated through use of automatic and autonomous farm machinery. These are all the issues smallholder farmers want solved.

What would such a scenario require? At the policy level, advocacy and incentives for farmers to virtually aggregate,  subsidies for virtually aggregate farmer/producer companies for start up and use new technologies etc. We would not have to worry about the current frame of land ownership being parallel to data ownership as virtually aggregation would also mean data and information aggregation. Virtual aggregation will contribute to reinforce most societal ethics of equity, fairness and justice and as also the right of smallholder farmers to live with dignity. Even many of our civil laws would remain unchanged.

Dear participants, this is really a fantastic discussion and in my mind, just for starters, shows how dispersed and different we are in thinking about "data driven agriculture" -  this dispersion is not a negative thing, I must add, but rather a very useful way of extracting constructive suggestions.  A couple of issues caught my attention:

1. Organizational aspects also seem to be recurrent in the chain of comments.  Thinking about very poor, small holder farmers in many parts of the developing world, their organizational capacities are very, very limited (in many regions at least). And incentives for grouping seem often weak and do not last very long. I wonder if associations/cooperatives/whatever-grouping-scheme are in some way a pre requisite for better integration into data flows and community management of data. My guess is: it depends on very specific contexts, including types of crop and destination of production.  

2. Mr. Uschena summarizes it well:  "Data, products and processes for digital [data driven]agriculture must be context specific, designed to suit the [very specific] conditions of farmers in poorer countries and improving local crops." I would personally focus on improving not only production but contributing to overall welfare and and improved livelihoods, including womens situation in the farmng family and educational, health and nutritional wellbeing of youngsters.  Better production and productivity may not always lead to improved livelihoods. 

3. Mrs. van den Burg comment on how to look at "success" from our own vintage point, pressess us to some re thinking. This is not simply a conceptual issue but one which has some very practical effects in terms of design and implementation of policies, tools, management schemes, etc. under which better innovation can be deployed and uptaken by small holder farmers.  

4. Mr. Babcock´s comment is highly informative and provocative. I have to admit I am not a blockchain expert and have always been intrigued about its concrete application in certain fields. I wonder how and IF it would be possible to deploy these technologies in certain small holder farmers contexts where extreme conditions (poverty, literacy, capacities, etc.) may be limited.  I have to say I CAN envision a positive scenario, maybe with more basic data/technology tools at hand. Very stimulating reflection ...

5. Mr. Maru´s "virtual aggregation" suggestions also seems very interesting to me. The notion seems flexible, and at the same time would seem (if I understand correctly) to enable the maintenance of certain local, cultural, technological values and assets already in play with farmers.

This is of course not an exhaustive comment ... and all comments could be part of detailed exchanges.  

I truly appreciate engagement and interactions.

Manuel 

I think it is very difficult to find a global solution to the data-driven agriculture.Indeed the specificities of each continent, each region, each country and even local specificity will be considered. Strategies should be adapted accordingly.

As for me, with regard to Africa, it seems right that the governments financially support the establishment of any scenario of data sharing in agriculture.

In order to have the smallholder farmers steadily growing by adapting data-driven agriculture, we must look at the market system within which they operate. All the stakeholders who are directly and indirectly working with the smallholders need actionable data/information in order for them to do a good job. This is what will drive inclusion and equity. I will attempt to explain a scenarion that depicts what success will look like in future:

Agricultural inputs - Smallholders will be receiving the right kinds of inputs in fashionale time. The distribution/supply chains will adequately respond to the needs of the smallholder farmers based on consumer data collected over seasons. Therefore the varieties of seed, agrochemicals and other inputs will be based on accurate smallholder preferences. The provision of extension services will be based on what farmers are purchasing and using on their farms. The transperancy and access to information will empower the smallholder farmers to always demand for better service and quality from suppliers. This open demand will then enlist responses based on trust and mutual benefit.

The offtaker or buyer - data will drive this stakeholder to work better with the smallholder farmer. With accurate information on acreage, varieties, seasons and market information, the buyer will feel confident to enage more intentionally with the smallholder farmer. Armed with information, he will be able to value the relationship with the smallholder because he will offer support (such as quality seed, etension, credit)to ensure that he gets the quantity and tha quality he needs at the end of the season. Data will enable the buyer to understand the needs of the farmers better and therefore package his support accordingly. This will strengthen his relationship with the farmers and other stakeholders in the system.

The government - The government will be in the best position ever to create an enabling environment that encouraging the thriving of the smallholder farmer. There will be a mechanism through which government collects accurate famer information, either directly or indirectly, from the village to the national level.The same process will be used to share the information in forms that are user-friendly and useful. The information will be used to provide incentive for better participation in the value chains by the various stakeholders who will themselves. Even when governments want to provide subsidies to farmers, they will plan better and the subsidies will be smart enough as to give farmers what they exactly need at the right time and will not stiffle the develoment of the private sector inputs businesses. The policies and all other legal regimes will work to provide a tranparent framework on how farmer information is aggregated by the private sector and the developnebt agencies and what rights farmers (as the primary source)have in the entire process. 

Business Development Service Providers - When they have the right data in future, they will be in better position to coin value propositions that suit the critical needs of smallholder farmers and other stakeholders. Agricultural insurance, for instance, will be availabe at competitive terms when insurers tap into comprehensive and accurate climate/weather data. In turn this will have a knock on effect with the financial institutions which are still looking at smallholder agriculture as a high risk customer segment. They will come up with products that suit the unique circumstances of the farmers and make them available at competitive terms. ICT firms use data to find better ways of reaching the most people at the bottom of the pyramid at the least possible cost. Perhaps government will use this service to regulate better collcetion and acess to information by all stakeholders, especially the farmer by leveraging the ever increasing acess to the mobile phone and radio.

Desired scenarios – would be where smallholder farmers are making decision that are driven by the data. One scenario would be personalized farmers data base from their experience in farming which they will have documented using the current available artifacts such as smartphones or through social networking. My opinion on this is informed by the current changing farming practices (especially in Sub-Saharan Africa) where there is an increasing emergence of medium scale farmers that are now playing a major role in synthesizing information and data in their decision making and thus influencing other so called smallholder farmers to adopt their practices.

The rate adoption of the data-driven agriculture will depend on the value that the farmers perceive in it in achieving their goals.

How would the success look like – Farmers having ‘small-data’ either in their smart phones or any other digital artifacts that they are able to relate and help them in decision making. Then we will have other data either in private or government or other organizations that will work in synergy either for policy or business that farmers with capabilities may utilize.

Dear participants, I am signing off as the coordinator for day 2 after a long and very interesting day. Thank you all for your time and very useful and well thought inputs. 

My own take after reflecting for a while on very diverse comments is that, at the end of the day, I´d like to see a scenario where according to specificities and wide varying contexts in which small holder farms operate and live, they are able to make good, well informed and safe decisions regarding what they do and how they do it. Digital data, platforms, providers, I-phones, etc. may play a role as long as they respond to the farmer and are developed primarily for the farmers interest, and not of an external force (a company, a brand, a market, etc.). I also think data and information generated by farmers over centuries, is also invaluable and should be fitted into whatever equation is formulated - with the "data driven" variable in place. This which seems very obvious has, as we´ve seen, tremendpus complexities which hopefully, gradually will be overcome. Concrete examples and scaling up efforts, might be a good way of testing some of the ideas expressed durung session 2. 

Once again, thanks to all and very grateful for the opportunity to interact.   

Much of Data what we need in future depends more on how and how much water is saved for each crop,including sugarcane.Are we getting any genetically modified food,with out complaints[after testing at least for 3 years].Are we using the water bore systematically for horticulture,is there solar power for pums available.Are the agriculturist is free from,pests,snake bites,and other Non communable deseages including malaria.

Safety,systematic production,insurence,and timely saving of crop produce and sales in markets.Disaster preparedness is the other.