Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Codes of conduct for farm data sharing

707 views

Published on

Codes of conduct for farm data sharing - Rationale, review, recommendations by Valeria Pesce (FAO)

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Codes of conduct for farm data sharing

  1. 1. Codes of conduct for farm data sharing Rationale, review, recommendations Valeria Pesce (FAO) "Mobilizing Capacity Development in Agriculture for Smallholder Farmers - How to bridge the digital divide". Webinar, 2/4/2020
  2. 2. «Rights»: difficult balance: protection / obstacle • Farmers are entrepreneurs and their competitiveness should not be harmed by sharing business-sensitive data BUT • Farmers need to share data through digital technologies to get precision agriculture to work and to receive data-driven services • Farmers have a key role and responsibility towards society in sharing essential tracking data for food safety, sustainability of production, land use Farm data should be considered as any other business data and the same legal data protection should apply BUT strict ownership and rights-based approaches can be an obstacle to data sharing that benefits society and farmers themselves
  3. 3. Why sharing farm data: social responsibility, benefits Farmers share data Farmers have access to better data and services Service providers and govt reuse farm data to build better services Farm data is shared along the agri-food value chain Traceability, accountability Societal goals, SDGs Farm data used only for agreed purposes trust Data is shared also by other actors • To whom does this data belong (at each stage)? • Who decides on sharing or not sharing or conditions for sharing? • What is the legal framework?
  4. 4. Challenges Data asymmetries in unbalanced agri-food value chains (1) Weak position of the farmer in existing agri-food value chains in Europe amplified by: • “Excessive transparency” of farmer’s data towards govt. and other actors in the value chain; more data than necessary is asked / taken from the farmer • Farmers’ data less protected than other businesses’: blurred distinction of personal/non-personal data (e.g. location, income); farming practices / trade secrets; possible re-identification • Knowledge asymmetries: Data goes from many farmers to fewer big corporations. Having more data and more knowledge than other actors in the same value chain can give a privileged position to both buy at favorable conditions and sell tailored service: risk of lock-in, price discrimination… • Different degrees of dependence on external data sharing (bigger actors and more “vertical” parts of the value chain are more data self-sufficient) Riskofunfairpractices
  5. 5. Challenges Data asymmetries in unbalanced agri-food value chains (2) • The farmer doesn’t have much choice (subsidies, farm registries, social responsibility) – farm data transmitted by digital technologies • The big data processors can afford not to share • Infrastructure costs + amount of aggregated data  risk of “natural monopoly” • Resistance to share by big actors who can afford not to share: • hinders the homogeneous aggregation of data for traceability and for the monitoring of societal goals • makes some actors, like farmers, who can’t avoid sharing data through ICTs, more exposed than others
  6. 6. Legal uncertainties Uncertainty of ownership of and rights on agricultural data Digital agriculture: farmers the most exposed as farm data is shared MOST STUDIES WOULD ASSIGN OWNERSHIP OF FARM DATA TO THE FARMER Not a legal statement, more of an ideological and ethical one • “Ownership” of data: not recognized in legislation • database copyright would attribute ownership to data processing company • ownership is not a useful concept when data move and change structure across systems
  7. 7. What rights exist Personal Privacy - Confidential Information Copyright - Licenses - Technological Protection Measures Sui Generis Database Rights Patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights Traditional Knowledge Who exercises the right? (e.g. the person about whom data pertains, the person who provided the data; the entity that made investments in the collection) de Beer J. Ownership of Open Data: Governance Options for Agriculture and Nutrition [version 1; not peer reviewed]. F1000Research 2017. https://f1000research.com/documents/6-1002 No clear legal framework for farm data sharing
  8. 8. Contractual practices • No dedicated policy or legal framework (except for personal data, confidential data, trade secrets) • Current solution: contracts • Some common contractual practices: • No contractual clauses on data ownership and data uses • IoT generated data belongs to the IoT producer • Raw IoT data generated on the farm belongs to the farmer, processed and aggregated data belongs to the farmer • Uses of farm data not clarified, unlimited reuse • Uses of farm data clarified, not negotiable • Need for consent from the farmer for reuse
  9. 9. Why Codes of Conduct • Trust • Normative gaps Industry-led self-regulation in the form of codes of conduct or voluntary guidelines can have a role in filling the legislative void and setting common standards for farm data sharing contracts even across countries and regions. • Simplifying the assessment of behaviours Like in other sectors when companies want to demonstrate compliance with social responsibility requirements. Forms of accreditation • Awareness building Codes of conduct can change the way agribusinesses thinks about data and make data producers, primarily farmers, more aware of their rights. • Participation and inclusiveness Codes of conduct are normally co-developed by different organizations representing the concerned stakeholders. This fosters trust and increases credibility. Sanderson, J., Wiseman, L., Poncini, S. What’s behind the ag-data logo? An examination of voluntary agricultural-data codes of practice. In: International Journal of Rural Law and Policy, no. 1 (2018)
  10. 10. Three examples American Farm Bureau Federation’s Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data (2014) A set of principles around consent and disclosure in farm data sharing, aiming to ensure that the ag- data is not misused, providing companies that collect and analyze farm data (ATPs) with guidelines when constructing their contracts and technologies. EU Code of Conduct on Agricultural Data Sharing by Contractual Agreement (2018) The EU Code focuses on contractual agreements and provides guidance on the use of agricultural data, particularly data rights, access rights and re-use rights. Its aim is to create trust between the partners, set transparency principles and define responsibilities. Its key points are ownership, control, consent, disclosure and transparency. New Zealand Farm Data Code of Practice (2014) A set of guidelines for data sharing in the New Zealand agriculture industry. "Organisations complying with the Farm Data Code of Practice give primary producers confidence that their information is secure and being handled in an appropriate manner“.
  11. 11. Common aspects Self-regulatory, voluntary Principle-based These Codes focus on the outcome of ag-data practices rather than the exact process or actions by which this is to be achieved. So, rather than dictating exactly how agribusiness should manage ag- data, current codes of practice tend to focus on consent, disclosure and transparency. Scope Data related to agricultural production, including farm data and all types of data generated within the farming processes. Farm data (agronomic data, livestock data, compliance data), machine data, service data, agri-supply data, agri-service provider data. Audience Agricultural Technology providers (ATPs), providers that manage farm data for agri-businesses Content The existing codes revolve around three core common points: consent, disclosure and transparency Sanderson, J., Wiseman, L., Poncini, S. What’s behind the ag-data logo? An examination of voluntary agricultural-data codes of practice. In: International Journal of Rural Law and Policy, no. 1 (2018)
  12. 12. Content: US, EU and NZ Codes of conduct US EU NZ  Farmers continue to be the owners of non- aggregated farm data  Responsibility of service providers to inform farmers that their data are being collected, and how they are used; do nothing without the consent of farmers  Right to retrieve own data for storage or use in other systems  It is unclear who owns the aggregated data and what rights that ownership implies  Originator continues to be the owner of the data and can determine who can access data and use it  Right to know the purpose of data collection and sharing  Reuse requires consent and is subject to purpose limitation  Right of the originators to benefit from their data and to retrieve their data down the line  Aggregated data belongs to the aggregator  Make disclosures to primary producers and other end users about the rights that the parties have  Disclose practices and policies around: data rights, data processing and sharing, data storage and security  Implement practices to ensure data is managed according to agreed terms and for agreed purposes, and accessible under appropriate terms and conditions
  13. 13. Certification / compliance tools US: Ag-Data Transparency Evaluator: process to certify those Ag Tech providers whose contracts complied with the Principles for Farm Data: Ag-Data Transparency Evaluator  Ag Data Transparent Seal of Approval NZ: compliance checklist, review panel  annual licence and certificate as well as the NZ Farm Farm Data Code trade mark to use Opportunities of Data Certification • Opportunity to develop transparency and trust around data uses. • A data certification scheme can enhance trust because producers are assured that an independent and objective party has evaluated the provider’s practices and deemed them worthy of certification.
  14. 14. Challenges • Possible overlap or even conflict with existing legislation Particularly privacy and consumer laws, especially in cross-national flows. • Who is in the best position to design, implement and administer the ag-data code • Ensuring adequate adoption (and enforcement?) Other voluntary codes of practice – for example, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) - are most successful when legal and regulatory obligation exists and are consistent with the standards that government and industry are attempting to implement. (None of the codes reviewed seem to have a significantly broad adoption) • Legitimacy Sufficient representativeness, independent administration, auditing. • Credibility Self-regulation is not always considered as a rigorous instrument. “Self-regulation is frequently an attempt to deceive the public into believing in the responsibility of the irresponsible industry. Sometimes it is a strategy to give the government an excuse for not doing its job” [Braithwaite 1993]. • Risk of watering down the principles by trying to accommodate the competing interests of different stakeholders, in order to attract members to increase adoption.
  15. 15. Important aspects for success Effectiveness Adoption Balance between attraction and high standards Credibility Clear direction Representation and inclusiveness Independence and external auditing Alignment with the broader ag-data normative framework Farmers’ perspective Roles of stakeholders https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mDNfCFvRQJeOaVDI-ft37qH3lAldht-1n2XJ2rvWJkY/edit?usp=sharing
  16. 16. Useful references EU Code of conduct on agricultural data sharing by contractual agreement Europe https://copa- cogeca.eu/img/user/files/EU%20CODE/EU_Code_2018_web_version.pdf US Farm Bureau "Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data" US https://www.fb.org/issues/technology/data-privacy/privacy-and- security-principles-for-farm-data New Zealand Farm Data Code of Practice New Zealand http://www.farmdatacode.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Farm- Data-Code-of-Practice-Version-1.1_lowres_singles.pdf What’s behind the ag-data logo? An examination of voluntary agricultural-data codes of practice World, US, New Zealand https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/ijrlp/article/view/6043 Global Forum for Food and Agriculture. Communiqué 2019. (Point 3 "Improving data use, ensuring data security and data sovereignty") World https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Landwirtschaft/Welterna ehrung/GFFA_2019_Kommunique_EN.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Uganda govt. Data Protection and Privacy Bill Uganda https://www.nita.go.ug/sites/default/files/publications/Data%20Protecti on%20and%20Privacy%20Bill%202015%20-published_0.pdf US Ag Data Act US https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2487 CIPE "DIGITAL ECONOMY. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT GUIDE", chapters on "Data Protection", p. 21 and p. 59 World https://www.cipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Digital-Economy- Guidebook-FINAL-PDF.pdf Data Matters: Ethics, Data, and International Research World https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ir9CZN9tj0I06u_Uhg9AdhGwk3qIQom7 /view?usp=sharing European Data Protection Board. Guidelines 1/2019 on Codes of Conduct and Monitoring Bodies under Regulation 2016/679. EDPB, 2018. Europe https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our- documents/guidelines/guidelines-12019-codes-conduct-and-monitoring- bodies-under_en GFAR/CTA/GODAN Collective Action – Review of codes of conduct, voluntary guidelines and principles relevant for farm data sharing World https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mDNfCFvRQJeOaVDI- ft37qH3lAldht-1n2XJ2rvWJkY/edit?usp=sharing
  17. 17. Codes of conduct for farm data sharing Rationale, review, recommendations Thank you Valeria Pesce (FAO) "Mobilizing Capacity Development in Agriculture for Smallholder Farmers - How to bridge the digital divide". Webinar, 2/4/2020

×