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. «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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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