Open access to data implies its open use. In most cases, this is interpreted as unrestricted use.  But to bring accessible data into use requires capacities. Most proponents of open access to data are silent on how the capacities for its use will be generated so that current divides are not exacerbated and new divides will not be created. They are also silent on the logical progression that open technologies would follow open data and information.

For smallholder farmers, the use of ICTs with calls for "open" access to their data and information can be an existential challenge atleast for their near future. As happened in the so called "Green Revolution" in Asia, the use of high yielding seed responsive to better mangement, external farm inputs especially fertilisers and the capacity to market crop surplus while it benefitted many also wrecked havoc for farmers who either did not have these capacities or were not included when inputs were subsidized and markets were protected. In India, these farmers were smallholders who practised dry land, seasonal agriculture. Even today, fifty years after the so called Green revolution, Indian farmers' distress has not abated. It is estimated that more than 500 farmers loose their livelihoods every day and some even suicide.

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. 

Yes, I agree that farmers are not included as much as desired in policy making.

We must however consider that the use of any technology goes through phases of innovation, diffusion and then its widespread adoption in the mainstream.  

Government policy may be viewed as a set of deliberate principles to guide decision making influences all phases of technology use. Policy can help or hinder technology use.

National policies are framed considering a backdrop of various political, economic, social and technological factors. In many cases now, the physical environment is also an important factor. As Agri-food systems span several countries and continents, International considerations also influence policy making.  Policies are formally expressed through instruments such as standards, taxation, subsidies, rules, regulations and permissions. At the International level, these instruments also include arrangements, agreements and treaties.

Beyond these, societies and communities also express their ethical values informally around issues through norms and understandings.The more effective use of data, information and knowledge brought with information and communications technologies in farming, agriculture and agri-food systems is now at a stage where national policies can either accelerate or retard the pace of the technologies’ use. In turn, this can affect the livelihoods, incomes, health, nutrition and quality of life of a country’s citizens. More directly, it can affect its farmers. Thus, policy making must include representatives of  all actors and stakeholders to an issue.

Farmers, especially smallholder farmers in developing countries, are  politically, economically and many a times even socially weaker section of society. Calls for including them in policy making may not fructify until they are made politically strong and claim their right. This can only be possible when they are aggregated around a common cause. 

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.

Certainly.

When I approach my bank for a loan, I have to provide my financial situation for the bank to assess its risks (which unfortunately did not happen in 2008 with Fanny Mae etc., when the risk was converted to "derivatives;-)). As long as the bank uses it to give or not give me a loan, it is fine but if it gives this data to my grocer or milkman, then is it ethical or lawful? This is what the forum should debate because what you mention in Kenya is very similar. 

I agree that there is a "proper" time to set laws for any issue. In the background note for this forum, a normative framework is introduced on the phase wise development of each, from policy to Institutions and capacities.  Of couse, each phase is closely intertwined with overlap significantly with other phases but the sequence followed is somewhat sequential in real situations. An issue has to "mature" enough for each phase of development, from policy to ethics and law. 

The background note also states "use will ultimately define the parameters for policies, laws and ethics that govern agricultural data and information. The instruments of law and ethics so developed will apply to generation, management, flow, sharing and exchange as also in use of data and information."  The focus on ownership is misplaced. It is a legacy of  a political and social structure that aimed to control and exploit tangible resources.

It is not that we, as a society, do not have experience of systems where there was joint or no ownership of resources. Pastoral societies such as of North America before the arrival of Europeans had no concept of land ownership. In fact a famous indigenous leader remarked, "how can you own land, can you own the wind that blows or the water that flows?" when land deeds were sought from the indigenous people.  

Agri-food systems cannot be sustained without open sharing and exchange of data. The commodity and product chains are complex, with the number of nodes at which they are transformed and with the number of actors and stakeholders involved. Just as each node transforms the commodity or product, each node also transforms the accompanying data and information and in fact changes "ownership". The use of the data flowing in the system is more important than ownership for considering ethics and law. 

Dear Dr. Dey:

Please provide where and how the app you mention can be downloaded/used online.

Look at it this way. For a smallholder farmer, marketing starts with his/her local market and not with the national market. This usually is at the nearest (small) town where the produce is sold to a market intermediary who then sells in larger mandis markets (In India there are between 7-14 market intermediairies between farmer and consumer).  The prices indicated in most such applications are 1. Not farm gate purchase price 2. For very large markets/mandis 3. For bulk (though price may be mentioned in quintals purchase in in tonnes. 4. The price is usually dated by minimum of 2-3 days (a significant time gap for change in prices). Further, this is not the guaranteed/regulated price. Even the Government agencies are known not to purchase the produce at Minimum Support Price. Recently, there were newspaper reports of onions in Madhya Pradesh (which had a well publicised farmer agitation) which were not purchased by Government agencies even after Government announcements. However all these are "academic" reasons/results. Farmers in India will usually call a friend/market intermediary on a cell phone (very widespread in use) to find the price and settle the sale/purchase at the farm gate price. In theory all these initatives are very interesting but in real practice, useless.

Also trying to get historical data from the Agmarknet or any government agency is to say the least "difficult". Recently I wanted data for making a sample cadastral map of farmers land holdings in a district in Gujarat. I was told that a seperate application for every village (600 in the district) will be required!