Good day everyone, 

A warm welcome from a cold South Africa on the 4th day of this E-Consultation on the ethical, legal and policy aspects of data sharing affecting farmers. I am Nicolene Fourie and have the privilege of moderating Day 4 of the discussion.  

The objective of the days discussion will be to position ourselves for the  present and near future and to have a discussion to reflect on the required actions that should be taken  in  2018-2021 to ensure smallholder farmers benefit from agricultural data. In addition we should also consider the landscape in terms of the actors and to attempt to define the roles of these actors.   

The discussion will draw on the past three days discussions and relevant literature to propose practical and actionable outcomes. The following documents can serve as reference material for the discussion:

[1] De Beer, J. Ownership of open data: Governance options for agriculture and nutrition. Wallingford: GODAN, 2016. https://f1000research.com/documents/6-1002

[2] Maru, A. et al. Digital and Data-Driven Agriculture: Harnessing the Power of Datafor Smallholders. GFAR, GODAN and CTA, 2018. https://f1000research.com/documents/7-525

[3] Boyera, S. et al. Farmer profiling: Making data work for smallholder farmers. CTA Working Paper 17/09. Wageningen: CTA, 2017.

[4] Chaves Posada, J. Achieving Farmers Rights in Practice: GFAR Discussion Document. Rome: Global Forum on Agricultural Research, 2013. http://www.gfar.net/sites/default/files/cgiar_farmers_rights_report_final_aug_13.pdf.

[5] Chaves Posada, J. Rights of farmers for data, information and knowledge. Rome: Global Forum on Agricultural Research, 2014. http://www.gfar.net/sites/default/files/rights_of_farmers_for_data_information_and_knowledge.pdf

[6] Jellema A. et al. Open data and smallholder food and nutritional security. CTA Working Paper 15/01. Wageningen: CTA, 2015.

From the preceding days discussions and the literature it is evident that that the value and potential reuse of data is the driving force for open data.  But the impact or potential impact is questioned in the smallholder communities because of the lack of data/ information flowing to the smallholder communities to inform their operations and planning. 

Some initiatives such as the Open Data Journal for Agricultural Research (ODjAR) (http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/odjar/) aim to bridge the gap from a research perspective by providing a mutually beneficial environment for the researchers and potential users alike.  This “opening” of agricultural research data will create an access channel that can inform development in smallholder communities.   

From a governmental and spatial perspective we have initiatives from the UN-GGIM with regional and local governments implementing open data initiatives and the adoption of Spatial Data Infrastructure as governance models to make data accessible.  The above mentioned provides perspective on two potential actors and the roles they can play in the provision and governance of data.  The actors draw on a combination of legal and policy drivers for their actions and mandates.   

With this I would like to open the discussion for today:   What will be the steps required in the present and near future (2018-2021) in terms of ethical, legal and policy aspects to move towards the desired scenarios of open data for farmers /smallholder level?   I am looking forward to this engagement and a robust solution orientated discussion. 

Another 11th hour comment.  There’s been a prevailing discussion on government and questions around their role in the provision/enabling the data environment.  In the absence of any reference to it I would like to table the concept of a Spatial Data Infrastructure as a governance model for government data or public sector data (PSI). 

I have found that most countries in the world (even in less developed countries) there is some traces of SDI and the structure of data governance exists and is aligned (once again in varying degrees) to international initiatives. 

For example the UN-GGIM aims to address global challenges regarding the use of geospatial information, including in the development agendas, and to serve as a body for global policymaking in the field of geospatial information management.  With regional entities (and member states)  for Asian-Pacific (Afghanistan, American Samoa, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Hong Kong, China, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Macao, China, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Marianas, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.) , Arab states (Algeria, Bahrain, Comores, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, State of Palestine, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. ), Europe (Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, The Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ), Americas (Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Maarten, St Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela. ) and Africa (Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Kingdom of Eswatini, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe ).SDI references beyond UNGGIM (http://ggim.un.org/ )

Overarching considerations from a policy and legal perspective.

Firstly I would like highlight that policy and legal constructs should not be seen as two different concepts but rather as a regulatory hierarchy.  Often objectives such as “open data” or even just data sharing is not accomplished because of the disjuncture between the policy and legal constructs.    

Secondly, I would like to support the preceding arguments around the premature development of legal mechanisms and associated policies.  There is a place for the formalisation of legal constructs and the associated policies, but an even more important consideration is the timing of its development.  Over the past few years the international data focus was divided between the ever increasing legal construct in support of protection of personal information and cyber security on the one hand and open data initiatives on the other.   

1a: Challenges related to accessing data:

More often than not access constrains stem from the lack of access mechanisms such as metadata repositories, data nodes, but more prevalent but less pronounced is the lack of insight in to the data and potential application.  I am often faced with the argument that “the data is not available” or “data cannot be accessed”.  I then pose the following questions - What data do you need?  What do you want to do with the data or wat will the data inform? At this point the discussion normally veer down a rabbit hole of misconstrued user requirements.  Thus access to data is severely hindered because of the open endedness of data requests.  

The main reasons cited for access constraint, from a governmental perspective (especially for technical data e.g. soil, climate,  agricultural potential etc.) relates to the potential misinterpretation of data or an unwillingness that the data be repurposed for competitive advantage. 

#Sipiwe Manjengwa: “Smallholder farmers are not given the platform on the policy dialogue and their voices are not heard.”  I agree with your statement.  But the problem is bigger than that.  The Smallholder farmers are often not aware of policy frameworks (e.g. data infrastructure legislation or policies on the sale of data) that can be used to provide access to data. 

1b: Challenges related to sharing data:

1. On a macro level there are a few challenges associated with the sharing of data. From a governmental perspective there is sometimes an unwillingness to share data (especially for technical data e.g. soil, climate,  agricultural potential etc.)  because of the potential misinterpretation of the data or an unwillingness to allow for the data to be repurposed to derive competitive advantage.
2. From a commercial perspective the big commercial farming enterprises have a monopoly on data flow within their value chains because of their investment in technology and decision support tools.