A quick message of thanks as we move towards the end of this e-discussion.

(Although we will leave the forum open also in the weekend, as some colleagues said they wanted to contribute but didn't find the time. We will close it on Monday morning.)

Thanks to all the participants who contributed high quality content  and very special thanks to the experts who guided the conversation!

I also want to thank the FAO team that hosted the forum.

We will follow up on the recommendations given by all of you and will get back to you with the proceedings of this discussion as well as with updates on the next steps of the process.

Thank you!

Valeria on behalf of all the organizers

GFAR, GODAN, CYA, KTBL

Speaking about next steps, is this consultation process useful? How should we bring it forward?

Many posts in this discussion have mentioned the need for different actors to come to the table, collaborative platforms, farmers/suppliers decision making platforms, finding business models that benefit all actors, collaboration in general, so it seems that convening different actors in a process aimed at agreeing on principles and perhaps actions could be a good recommendation for the near future?

The organizers of this e-consultation (GFAR, GODAN, CTA, KTBL) are planning on convening a more focused expert consultation on these topics in July in Bonn, from which we expect a set of recommendations and a plan to continue the dialogue with all actors that can help implement the recommendations. All input from this e-consultation will be considered in that meeting and in the recommendations.

In terms of actors that need to be involved because we need their views and they can then act on the recommendations, whom should we involve besides the actors already represented in this discussion?
We have several representatives from government and research, a few from farmers’ organizations (we would need more) and almost none from the private sector.

Besides the generic stakeholder group indication, do you have specific names of organizations or companies where you know there is a strong interest and expertise in the area of ethical, legal and policy aspects of data for / from farmers?

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.

Since we're supposed to think of long-term changes to move towards the desired scenarios, for those who didn't follow the discussion yesterday here is a recap of some common points in scenarios envisioned by participants (you can also look at the more detailed summaries by Manuel Ruiz yesterday, from which I borrowed something, thanks Manuel!).

Many of Leanne's suggestions can be usefully discussed in relation to these scenarios.

1. There will be cooperation /collaboration not competition, trust, free flows and exchange of data: several participants envisioned an ecosystem where different actors share data for mutual benefit

2. Common data platforms, data shared in the cloud, "organized data communities": all farmers' data shared with other farmers but also platforms where all necessary data from outside the farm is shared (weather, financial, market...); farmers organized and registered in a platform that brings in also big service providers; some participants envisage centralized platforms.

3. Organizational aspects: associations / cooperatives / "virtual aggregations" allowing for larger scale planning of farmland and cropping cycles, more efficient access and use of farm inputs, more precise forecast, better marketing. 

4. Specificity: data, products and processes for data driven agriculture must be context specific, designed to suit the conditions of farmers; weather data will be broadcast in a language understood by farmers, market data will be available via messaging updates and through tradition media; technologies co-developed with farmers; traditional knowledge recognized

5. "Success": improving not only production but contributing to overall welfare and and improved livelihoods; success interpreted in a social way (environment, food security, health, equality, transparency) or from the point of view of the farm as a business?

6. Related to point 2, data protection and transparency: data shared with appropriate licenses; through blockchain technology for maximum transparency.

7. Envisioned roles of actors: government ("our government will have repositories for farmers data and data related services available all the time"), private sector (providing technologies and services, using farmers' shared data with no unfair advantage, but still with the comparative advantage that comes with better processing and application of the data), intermediaries (enabling smallholder farmers to structure, organise and make use of any data that might be available), farmers organizations (aggregating farmers' data, negotiating data access on their behalf). Everything to the benefit of the farmer.