Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Joint contribution of the European Commission.

1. What are the potential entry points for government to address challenges and foster the development of digital agriculture?

In our view, the main entry points which should deserve most attention in view of fostering the uptake of digital tools in agriculture are:

• Fostering the link between eAgriculture and FinTech companies and the farmers, including farmers associations.
• Increasing the cooperation between Agriculture and Digital ministries and authorities inside governments, including farmers organisations.
• Government support schemes for assuring connectivity to farmers such as voucher schemes (EU experience)
• Governments have to assure that the farm advisory system in place, sufficiently addresses questions related to digitalization of the agricultural sector.
• Impact on the environment, being it negative or positive, should be one of the main issues to be taken into account: use of energy, use of sensitive minerals, positive and negative contribution to climate change, etc.
• The council should act considering the concentration of market operators.
• Inadequate access to information: How are the farmers aware of the available digital tools currently available and their benefits?
• Inadequate digital literacy and new skills development: How can governments encourage, promote and provide access to trainings for farmers wishing to use digital tools? How to ensure closing the digital gap between farmers (especially the ageing ones) and the rest of population? How to make farming attractive and modern for younger generations? For coping with digitalization farmers and food processors do not only need digital literacy, but also management skills for being able to decide which digital technologies from comprehensive portfolio is suitable for their business.
• Inadequate infrastructures: Digital divide is one of the main issues in rural areas and should be addressed providing reliable and affordable broadband connection fostering the uptake of digital tools in the farming sector. For instance, while SMS eAgri services are providing real benefits, the full potential will be reached by internet services accessed on smartphones. Inclusion of broadband connectivity in the national rural and agricultural policies.
• Data ownership: legal aspects of data ownership and protection are a cause of concern - issue of ‘datification’ (how to use the flow of data being produced to the benefit of farmers and how to ensure the added value of using all those data?).

Countries and farmers in particular should directly benefit from the “data economy” they generate thanks to digital transformation in agriculture.

Comments on the concept paper related to question 1:

• The global challenges presented are not conclusive.
• The council should assure the cross-cutting cooperation between the agriculture and digital sector at public and private level.
• The council is to address the agriculture and food sectors, but the contents of the initiative seems rather limited to agriculture. Digitalisation heavily impacts the food chain (e.g. blockchains), so the council mandate should cover the whole food chain.
• On the other hand, data on the current uptake of precision farming and other digital technologies by farmers is not available; stocktaking is needed.
• One main aspect missing in the text under Question 1, is the facilitated access to public data, which does not only refer to making data freely available, but also in an appropriate format.
• The elements suggested in concept note mix up two different aspects in nature: challenges related to the digitalisation versus possible actions for governments. The last aspect is hardly addressed and not sufficient elaborated. Given that the Council is not exclusively composed by governmental organisations, it would be suggested that the global challenges are addressed in a different question from the one referred to what governments and other players can do to drive the digitalization of the agri-food sector in a responsible way differentiated by stakeholder group. It is worth to note that the digitalization of the agri-food sector cannot be achieved effectively and efficiently by actions undertaken by governments alone.
• On the bullet point related to the “The increase of socio-economic divides between developing and developed countries”, there is a need to take into consideration the fact that the risk of a digital divide does not only exist between developed and non-developed countries. A digital divide may also occur between large and small farms or within the food chain between operators having more or less buying powers.
• To complement on the digital divide, the Council should specifically address the divide between men and women, and young and old people.
• On the bullet point related to the lack of investment, it is to be considered that this issue does not only concerns developing counties.
• The bullet point on “low affordability of new solutions” needs to be further elaborated – how does this aspect proposes good regulation, new business models, use of mix of technologies (satellite connectivity), voucher support schemes.
• Another concern regarding “affordability”: how to design digital tools that are useful and accessible to farmers? In many cases the need of farmers are not really taken into account when designing tools and digital services (strategy based on the supply of technologies and not on the demand). How to better involve farmers and farmers’ organizations in the design and management of the digital services?
• To complement on affordability, there is the need for a strong analysis on the digital tools and technologies and their specific context.
• On the bullet related to “Trust of information”, it should be highlighted that farmers are currently not the greatest beneficiaries in the data value chain
• The Council should focus on the promotion and interoperability of online supporting the function of agricultural markets.
• The Council should focus on better using mobile payments for supporting small farmers

2. How can the establishment of the Digital Council address the numerous barriers to adoption of these technologies?

• The Digital Council should be “inclusive” recognizing that countries are not all at the same level of development when we talk of digital agriculture.
• Expectations from the consumers in terms of food traceability for instance and of the agricultural community must both be taken into account when discussing about digital solutions in view of getting everyone on board.
• “Be neutral”: when selecting technologies supporting potential socio-economic and environmental impacts are to be considered as well.
• “Be ethical”: “Considering the rights of the vulnerable” should be brought in a new sentence
• “Be honest/fair”: should be added. The digitalisation is an innovation that provokes positive and negative impacts (as any other innovation), expected and unexpected impacts, direct and indirect impacts, winners and losers, etc. The council must fairly address all the controversies.
• The Council should engage with the private sector and remove barriers for investments such as unpredictability of regulations and fiscal policies
• Address connectivity by bringing together mobile operators and farmers associations
• Digitalisation should be an integral part of agriculture and rural policies
• Promote strong privacy regulations such as GDPR compliance, and privacy by default technologies
• Digital Council should promote an inclusive approach supporting small and local farmers in taking advantage of digitalisation and digital transformation

Comments on the concept paper related to question 2:

• There might be several interpretations or visions on how to develop digital farming and such variety of visions should be preserved to avoid any mainstreaming. Contexts, conditions, means are different and digital solutions should be tailor-made not imposed from a supranational body.
• It is paramount to promote the benefits of digital tools among the agricultural community to foster the uptake rather than imposing them how to do their work or changing their.
• In bullet point one, rural communities are mentioned; their role has not been elaborated under the other parts of the concept note; it is not clear, if they should have relevance only as far as it concerns the agri-food sector or the comprehensive integrated rural development by means of digitalization.
• The “end user” or “the types of end users” need to be further defined. Does it include only farmers, also food processors or other actors?

3. Do you think that the roles identified for the Digital Council are suitable for facing the agrifood systems challenges outlined above?

• The figure outlined in the discussion paper is not consistent, elements are repetitive to some extent. Some aspects go beyond the scope of the Council.

Comments on the concept paper related to question 3:

• Overall, the figure would benefit from a differentiation in actions to be carried out in short-term, medium-term and long term. Some actions are one-time activities, for which a framing is missing.
• The figure would benefit from the description of a strategic approach towards the work of the Council.
• The figure is divided into two main blocks “Role 1” focussing on a knowledge hub and “Role 2” focussing on a policy and regulatory framework. The creation of a knowledge hub is insufficient for reaching out to the end-user of digital technologies and triggering innovation development and uptake. It might be adapted to focus on the creation of a knowledge and innovation system, approaching also the communication between stakeholders including processes of co-creation and (knowledge) transfer.
• The Role 2 may go beyond the scope of the Council as agreed at the GFFA: the creation of a (common) regulatory framework is not a declared objective in the declaration signed at the GFFA. The work of the Council may guide signing countries to enhance policy framing conditions for the uptake of digital technologies, but the council itself is not to create regulations. In so far the figure is misleading and the text might be adapted deleting “regulatory”.
• The description of the three types of gaps is not conclusive: The innovation gap goes beyond a lack of R&D tailored to local contexts. The phrasing “integrator gap” might be re-considered, if it is to reflect on the need of increased multi-stakeholder collaboration.
• It is not clear, how the following is to be understood “ National would gain practical suggestions to foster digitalisations in agriculture”
• Important to make the link between the two elements “methods for closing gaps in these areas” and “collaboration could be an effective way to enable digitalization in an inclusive way”.
• A comprehensive stocktaking of the current extent of use of digital technologies will be essential to form a basis for the activities of the council.
• Capacity building (activities to strengthen capacities or guidelines to manage this topic)

4. What governance structure should be in place in order for the Council to serve its purpose?

• The governance structure should first and foremost be transparent to ensure the full adhesion and participation of the member countries.
• The digital sector (mobile operators and service providers) should be sufficiently represented
• The Council should be providing a service to member countries delivering clear benefits for them otherwise there is a risk of low commitment and participation. Redundancy with other networks and similar reflexion groups should be avoided.
• The description of the governance structures of the Council are insufficient and to some extent non-convincing. Especially the following aspects call the attention:

• The flow of resources is not described.
• The role of donors is not described.
• It calls the attention that the executive council is described as expert group, and that in parallel working groups, which can be expected to form expert groups as well, are set up.
• It is not clear, whether some organisations and governments, which are not represented in the executive council will have an observer role.
• It is not clear, whether activities carried out by the working groups are completely accomplished by the working groups themselves, or whether they are outsourced.
• The relation between working groups and executive council is not explained.

Comments on the concept paper related to question 4:

• While it is rather common to have a structure which steer the process and the work of such Council, it is also important to keep some possibilities for the member countries to propose some specific themes to be analysed and further developed when relevant.

5. Please add any other comment or relevant content you think should be included in the Concept Note.

Overarching remarks

The documents provided as basis for the online consultation appear not to be mature enough on the one hand, and too detailed on the other: while the overarching mandate and concept of the Council to be established has not been profoundly elaborated, some part of the discussion documents already contain quite detailed elements.

Furthermore, there are very few details on the funding mechanisms and the “status” the council will have within the FAO. Will it be an FAO body? Will it be independent or part of the FAO technology directorate? What role for the international organisations that are part of this process?

The overarching objectives and field of actions for the council are not clearly defined (description of mandate is missing); One of the main objectives should be to bring at the same table digital and agriculture public and private stakeholders and offer a platform for partnership.

The scope of the council appears – following the current outlines – be rather focussed on agricultural production, rather than on the whole food chain including food producers, processors; and traders; particularly food processing SMEs might be a crucial target group for the council as well.

The geographical scope is not defined. Digital solutions, especially when applied to agriculture, only work if they are thought and developed for a specific context. Generalisations should be avoided. The work of the Council should be organised according to geographical areas and then divide between rural and urban areas.

The council should diversify the approaches according to the areas and clarify its objectives for the medium to the long term. This will also imply a prioritisation of technologies and digital solutions depending on the areas of intervention.

The origin and amount of resources on which the work of the council is based is not clear, which makes it difficult to assess the potential field of action;

The roles of governments having signed the declaration, international organisations, other stakeholders and actors in countries not having signed the declaration is not clear.

In general, it presents a positive image of digitalization. Such a council must have a broader analysis to be sure to analyse the challenges and the risks in order to overcome these risks (digital divide, impact on environment, support all the farmers and especially small/poor farmers and other type of actors (women, youth, etc.)

The guidance note does not mention the already existing platforms/networks at international/continental level in terms of coordination mechanisms, which are able/willing to address digital agriculture and food, the strengths and weaknesses of the existing council/mechanisms (for example TAP, Godan, CGIAR Big Data Platform). A clear analysis on the different mechanisms and their roles would help better defining the added value of this council.

There is a need to better align the thinking and the proposals with the SDG. Digitalization is a mean not an objective. The type of agriculture may be supported by digital tools (intensive, agroecological, industrial, family agriculture) is not only a question of access to resources, capacity strengthening to avoid “reluctant parties”.

Finally, it is stated that the council will address the privacy issue. However, it has to be considered among the most important actions of the Council. It will have to act to protect the data of millions of potential users, and the EU GDPR is among the best examples to follow.