Equitable governance of agri-food data is imperative for global food security
by Policy Options. Originally published on Policy Options
On farms around the world, data is increasingly being used to guide agricultural practices from influencing what crops to plant and when to plant them, to managing pests and allocating resources efficiently.
Vast swaths of information — on crop yields, soil health, weather patterns, worker demographics, labour hours, production costs, and environmental impact — are compiled using many sources, including sensors, drones, agricultural vehicles, farm logs, financial records, remote technologies, surveys, and more.
Farmers, employers, government agencies, researchers, and NGOs gather this data for productivity, compliance, and for monitoring, planning, and improvement.
While this harnessing of technology can help boost productivity, promote sustainability, and indeed feed the global population, it also introduces significant consequences and ethical issues, including conflicts over who should be controlling and benefitting from this powerful tool.
One thorough assessment contends that excessively framing data to “drive” decisions diminishes the critical role of human factors in agriculture. There are also major concerns raised over discriminatory access to the data, demonstrated by the way this valuable resource is so unevenly made available to different players in the agriculture chain.
A power imbalance between big and small players
Globally, the politics of agri-food data highlights how power imbalances between big players and smallholder producers can impact vulnerable communities and undermine the sustainability of food systems.
Well-resourced entities such as corporations or government agencies have the means to collect, store, and analyze vast amounts of agricultural data, while small-scale farmers, despite producing a significant portion of the world’s food, often lack access to these same resources. This means that the benefits of precision agriculture and data-driven decision-making are concentrated in the hands of a few, which only exacerbates inequalities that already exist in the global food system.
Should these dominant entities have exclusive rights to this information, or should it be shared more equitably? These questions are especially relevant in regions where traditional knowledge and farming practices have sustained communities for generations. Without fair governance over who can draw from this bank of material, there is a risk that restricting access could undermine time-tested practices and push smallholder farmers further to the margins.
Before this imbalance becomes further entrenched, Canada has an opportunity to become a leader in promoting fair global governance of agricultural data by updating its own laws and policies to ensure that farmers have control over how their data is used.
Manifestations of power dynamics
Power dynamics play a significant role in shaping the agri-food value chain, with inequalities manifesting across five key areas:
- Agenda-setting is often controlled by powerful actors including corporations, international organizations, governments, scientists, and the media. These players frame the global narrative, promoting digital technologies as the primary solution to food insecurity and productivity challenges.
- The data generated through these tools is influenced by how the technology was developed and deployed. Typically these methods reflect the interests of the powerful, leading to outcomes that favour certain groups while marginalizing others. For instance, if the gendered impacts of new technologies are overlooked, women’s labour may be disproportionately displaced by mechanization, ultimately excluding women from agricultural processes.
- The way we prioritize research topics and methodologies is not neutral, but influenced by factors such as funding sources and institutional interests. This is reflected in the debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs), where a single scientific data set can lead to conflicting conclusions depending on who conducts or finances the study.
- Increasing hegemonic alliances could lead to more market control — and exclusions. For instance, the 2018 merger of Bayer and Monsanto created an oligopoly that controls about two-thirds of global seed and agrochemical production. This consolidation is a recipe for anti-competitive behaviours that chill innovation, trigger higher prices, and escalate the dependency of farmers on a few suppliers.
- The issue of data ownership and sharing is significant. Control of valuable agricultural data often lies in the hands of corporations, while farmers are typically offered contracts that limit their ability to negotiate, or to even share their own data. This frequently prohibits farmers from collaborating with multiple service providers, further eroding their independence.
Why should we care?
The global community must take notice of the growing inequality in accessing agri-food data and its benefits. Consider the need to prevent corporations from usurping international regulatory authority.
Currently, 90 per cent of the global grain trade is controlled by four multinational agribusiness firms. A single policy change by any of these big players could change international standards that regulate the entire sector, and negatively affect the world’s food systems.
Another concern is stakeholders who are vulnerable to being negatively impacted by skewed governance of agri-food data. Many activists, especially from developing nations, view the exploitation of agri-food data as a modern-day version of colonial-era resource extraction, where only a select few benefitted. If governance frameworks do not address such exclusionary abuses, we risk instability and resistance from affected communities.
There is also increasing scrutiny from consumers, investors, and shareholders who are paying closer attention to how corporations conduct their operations. Ethical concerns, such as the use of child labour or poor working conditions, are increasingly driving investment decisions and consumer choices. The unfair control of agri-food data is another form of exploitation, and businesses will face growing pressure to address these inequities.
Finally, ensuring fair access to agri-food data aligns with global efforts to achieve UN-established Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those related to ending hunger and promoting gender equality, climate action and responsible consumption.
The politics of agri-food data
The future of food security depends on how we address the politics of agri-food data. A global regulatory framework is essential to correct power imbalances, promote equity, and encourage sustainable agricultural practices.
Governments, international organizations, and key stakeholders must collaborate to create inclusive policies that ensure equitable access to data and its benefits, particularly for those in developing countries.
A bottom-up approach should focus on participation from diverse stakeholders and providing objective information about the benefits of digital agriculture, but without imposing pressure to adopt associated technologies.
The perspectives of marginalized groups must be incorporated, ensuring a governance framework designed through a transparent and participatory process. Rather than relying on individually crafted contracts or voluntary codes, efforts should involve collective engagement with excluded communities as a unified bloc.
Academics and researchers have a responsibility to generate evidence that highlights power imbalances and proposes principles for equitably redistributing benefits and burdens. Civil society and the media have a responsibility to raise public awareness, demanding accountability and fairness from both private and public actors.
Participation should begin at the national level, where governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations consult with key groups, including farmers, Indigenous people, women, and agroecologists. Their needs should inform regional negotiations, leading to inclusive governance frameworks. Already, such models as the EU AI Act and the AU AI Continental Strategy are being acknowledged through this progressive lens.
By comparing regional frameworks, think tanks and academics can identify best practices and areas for improvement. A critical all-stakeholder approach to policymaking in agri-food data governance will ensure that the voices of vulnerable groups are heard, encouraging greater buy-in and reducing the dominance of powerful entities.
What role Canada could play
Canada can lead in promoting fair global governance of agricultural data by leveraging its laws, policies, and frameworks. Achieving this requires collaboration between the government, private sector, academia, and civil society. For example, while the federal government consultations on the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy emphasized the need for a data governance strategy that ensures “clear and commonly agreed sets of definitions, baselines and targets are being used,” no concrete action has addressed this gap.
A major issue in this context is the lack of an agreed definition of “agricultural data.” Current laws and policies on data governance do not adequately capture the nuances of agri-data, such as soil information or crop yields, leaving farmers’ information unprotected. This is especially concerning when data links to farm management, product sales, or land ownership.
Defining agricultural data with input from farmers and communities is essential to protecting their rights and ensuring equitable access to the benefits of new technologies and innovations, for sustainable food security.
This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
