{"id":6505,"date":"2024-09-25T11:46:47","date_gmt":"2024-09-25T03:46:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/panap.net\/?p=6505"},"modified":"2024-09-25T11:46:47","modified_gmt":"2024-09-25T03:46:47","slug":"profit-driven-digitalisation-vs-the-people-led-future-of-food","status":"publish","type":"panap_updates","link":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/updates\/profit-driven-digitalisation-vs-the-people-led-future-of-food\/","title":{"rendered":"Profit-driven digitalisation vs. the people-led future of food"},"content":{"rendered":"

Along with the climate crisis, the UN\u2019s proposed Global Digital Compact recognises digital transformation as one of the \u201cseismic shifts\u201d of the 21st<\/sup>\u00a0century. It thus aims to develop shared principles for an \u201copen, free and secure digital future for all,\u201d to be agreed upon by Member States at the upcoming Summit of the Future (SOTF).<\/p>\n

The Global Digital Compact gives an impetus to digital solutions for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This approach, however, risks exacerbating existing power imbalances in the agri-food sector, where big tech and agribusiness giants can leverage their existing technological advantages and resources to dominate the market further. Smaller farmers and rural communities may be forced to adopt digital systems they neither fully understand nor control, effectively ceding decision-making and data ownership to corporate entities.<\/p>\n

Corporate and profit-driven digitalisation could further erode traditional farming knowledge and food sovereignty, including farmers\u2019 ability to make independent choices about their livelihoods. Moreover, the push for increased data collection and sharing raises serious privacy concerns, even with safeguards that the compact aims to instil. Farmers and consumers may see their personal and operational data harvested, analysed, and monetised by large companies, often without meaningful consent or compensation. This data grab could lead to predatory pricing, manipulative marketing practices, and the further commodification of agriculture. Additionally, the compact\u2019s digital emphasis may also sideline crucial non-digital solutions\u2014including agroecological practices\u2014and marginalise farmers who choose not to or cannot participate in this digital ecosystem.<\/p>\n

\u2018Precision\u2019 technologies that aim to\u00a0\u2018optimise\u2019 chemical fertilisers and pesticides<\/a>, such as drones and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered robotics, also do not fundamentally change dependence on harmful inputs, are costly, and may even pose greater health and environmental risks.<\/p>\n

Finally, digital technologies are\u00a0resource intensive<\/a>. The AI boom has propelled the extraction of cobalt, lithium, nickel and rare earth minerals from land and sea beds, leading to the displacement of rural communities, land degradation, adverse impacts on people\u2019s livelihoods, and toxic waste. However, discussions on the Global Digital Compact have not encompassed how extracting the critical minerals involved in digitalisation impacts people\u2019s rights to land and resources.<\/p>\n

Innovation for more agri-food corporatisation<\/strong><\/p>\n

None of these concerns are reflected in the UN Food Systems Summit\u2019s (UNFSS) push for advancing agricultural technologies and digitalisation. These initiatives closely involve big businesses through the World Economic Forum (WEF), a co-lead of its Innovation Lever of Change. For instance, WEF\u2019s\u00a0Food Innovations Hub<\/a>\u00a0and Food Innovations Network involve major food, tech and pesticide companies (e.g. Bayer and UPL) and partners with governments to \u201caccelerate fit-for-purpose technology and innovations to secure a positive food future.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of its pilot Hubs exemplifies how digitalisation secures big corporate interests instead. Supported by a World Bank loan, Vietnam\u2019s\u00a0One-Million Hectare<\/a>\u00a0Low-Emission High-Quality Rice Program is a\u00a0public-private collaboration<\/a>\u00a0between Vietnam\u2019s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and business partners. These include digital payment provider Visa (for financial services), grain traders Olam Agri and Cargill (for rice procurement) and Bayer (for\u00a0access to hybrid seeds and drone<\/a>\u00a0technologies through a partnership with IRRI). The program incorporates carbon farming, which involves registering land and farmers in carbon offsetting schemes. Under carbon farming, farmers are paid a certain amount for carbon credits generated from specific practices (including agrochemical companies\u2019 definition of \u2018regenerative\u2019 agriculture) that supposedly store carbon in soils.<\/p>\n

Critics argue that carbon offsetting is a form of greenwashing that allows polluting entities to avoid meaningful emissions reductions while creating an illusion of climate action. Unsurprisingly, carbon farming, a land-based carbon offset scheme, is being promoted and dominated by agrochemical companies that leverage the integration of digital technologies and carbon markets to expand their influence across the entire agricultural value chain. Offering income from carbon credits as an incentive allows them to collect and control vast amounts of farm data, giving them unprecedented insight into agricultural practices globally. By leveraging this data, these corporations can further consolidate their market power, potentially squeezing out smaller competitors and reducing farmers\u2019 choices, ironically, to the same toxic, fossil fuel-based products.<\/p>\n

For instance, Bayer\u2019s\u00a0ClimateView<\/a>\u00a0requires US farmers to input data that will allow them to get paid for carbon. The program recommends planting protocols using Bayer\u2019s products, offers product discounts, and even offers Bayer products in lieu of carbon payments. Syngenta\u2019s\u00a0Cropwise<\/a>\u2122 Seed Selector uses AI to tailor seed recommendations from the company\u2019s line of hybrid seeds. At the same time, its new\u00a0digital tool<\/a>\u2014which aims to diagnose nematode infestations in soybean crops by analysing photographs taken from satellites\u2014recommends using Syngenta\u2019s new chemical nematicide and fungicide.<\/p>\n

Digitalised supply chains<\/strong><\/p>\n

Indeed, the UNFSS Data and Digital Coalition\u2019s\u00a0Digital Marketplace Playbook<\/a><\/em>\u2014a \u201cframework for leveraging digital and data innovation\u201d with case studies from \u201cemerging markets\u201d in Latin America, Africa, and Asia\u2014plays up the importance of private sector involvement in encouraging \u201cdata-driven, interconnected, digital innovation\u201d for food systems. The Coalition\u2019s founding members prepared the framework, including the WEF and Mercy Corps, an entity that develops \u201cinclusive digital products and services\u201d for smallholder farmers. WEF, BMGF, Bayer Foundation, and Google officials sit on the\u00a0Advisory Council<\/a>\u00a0of Mercy Corps.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Digital Marketplace Playbook<\/em>\u00a0highlights numerous benefits of digitalisation, such as improved market access, increased efficiency, and better decision-making tools for farmers. However, it also reveals a trend towards concentration of power in the hands of large tech and agri-food companies as the supply chain infrastructure is streamlined.<\/p>\n

For instance, the case studies of Alibaba\u2019s Taobao and Pinduoduo in China and Mercado Libre in Latin America demonstrate how e-commerce giants are becoming increasingly dominant in agricultural value chains. This could reduce farmers\u2019 bargaining power and autonomy as these e-platforms become the primary gatekeepers to large consumer markets. The emphasis on AI-generated dynamic pricing and demand prediction, as seen in Europe\u2019s Wasteless case study, could lead to increased market volatility and financialisation of agriculture in the guise of reducing food waste. Many e-platforms also specialise in providing farmers access to \u201cquality inputs\u201d and credit, such as\u00a0DigiFarm<\/a>\u00a0in Kenya, which \u201chelps agribusinesses and small holding farmers share information and transact more easily.\u201d<\/p>\n

Recipe for worse hunger<\/strong><\/p>\n

The UN\u2019s vision of \u2018transforming\u2019 food systems and addressing climate change and other global crises through the UNFSS and related initiatives such as the SOTF reveals a deeply flawed approach that further entrenches corporate control over food and agriculture. Far from being a radical reimagining of our food systems, these efforts largely reinforce the same neoliberal, profit-oriented industrial agricultural model that has failed to address hunger and environmental degradation for decades and inevitably leads to an escalation of the food, health, climate, biodiversity and pollution crises. By framing solutions in terms of technological innovation, digitalisation, and market-based approaches, they ignore structural problems that have hindered genuine and sustainable rural development, especially in the Global South, where small food producers who feed the world most acutely suffer the inequities of current food systems.<\/p>\n

The World Bank\u2019s\u00a0Recipe for a Livable Planet<\/a><\/em>\u00a0report projects that achieving \u2018net zero emissions\u2019 in the agri-food system would increase global agricultural production by 11.5% while reducing agricultural employment by 4.3% \u2013 equivalent to 101 million fewer farmers and farmworkers. This shift is attributed to a combination of new technologies and \u2018green\u2019 investments.<\/p>\n

However, these projections raise important questions. Even if the productivity gains materialise, the past decades have shown that increased agricultural output alone does not solve world hunger. More critically, we must consider the human cost: What would become of the livelihoods and communities of those 101 million displaced food producers?<\/p>\n

Radical shift for transformation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Instead, a radical shift toward a people-led transformation of food systems is urgently needed. This means centering the voices, knowledge, and rights of small-scale farmers, farmworkers, Indigenous peoples, and other rural peoples who have long been stewards of sustainable food production. True transformation must address the root causes of hunger and environmental destruction\u2014primarily concentrated land ownership, imperialist plunder of land and resources, corporate domination in food and agriculture sectors, labour exploitation, and inequitable global trade regimes. Effective change necessitates dismantling these systems of control and inequality. In its place, we should prioritise strengthening peasants\u2019 rights to land and resources, supporting community-led agroecological practices, and developing robust local food systems. These shifts can foster people\u2019s food sovereignty and form the building blocks of genuine and sustainable rural development.<\/p>\n

Climate action in agriculture must similarly be grounded in the experiences and solutions of frontline rural communities. Rather than carbon offset schemes and proprietary \u201cclimate-smart\u201d technologies that benefit large corporations, we need policies that support smallholder farmers in adapting to climate impacts and transitioning to low-emission practices on their terms. This includes recognising and bolstering climate-resilient agroecological farming methods and ensuring that rural peoples have rights and control over land and productive resources.<\/p>\n

On September 23, the Global Peoples\u2019 Caravan for Food, Land, and Climate Justice (GPC) will organise the\u00a0Forward Our Future: Summit for the Peoples\u2019 Development Agenda<\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>to highlight the struggles and demands of rural peoples. The People\u2019s Summit will culminate the various consultations, fora, and other actions that the GPC has organised since last year, which built on the outcomes of the Global People\u2019s Summit for Just, Equitable, Healthy, and Sustainable Food Systems in 2021\u2013the People\u2019s Counter-Summit to the UNFSS. This time, the\u00a0Rural Peoples\u2019 Development Agenda<\/em><\/strong>will consist of rural peoples\u2019 concrete policy demands and aspirations concerning the future of food systems, their right to land and resources, and call for climate justice.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, transforming our food systems to address hunger and climate change is not primarily a technological challenge but a political one. It requires breaking free from \u2018value chains\u2019 tied to capitalist profiteering by global and domestic elites. Fundamentally, it necessitates reshaping rural and national economies by building democratic control over food systems. Only through the leadership of farmers, workers, Indigenous peoples and other rural food producers \u2013 those with the deepest stake in creating just, equitable, healthy and sustainable food systems \u2013 can we hope to forge the radical changes needed to nourish people and the planet. The future of food must be people-led, not corporate-driven. ###<\/p>\n

(Part1<\/a>, Part 2<\/a>)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Along with the climate crisis, the UN\u2019s proposed Global Digital Compact recognises digital transformation as one of the \u201cseismic shifts\u201d of the 21st\u00a0century. It thus aims to develop shared principles for an \u201copen, free and secure digital future for all,\u201d to be agreed upon by Member States at the upcoming Summit of the Future (SOTF).…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6506,"template":"","update_categories":[110],"class_list":["post-6505","panap_updates","type-panap_updates","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","update_categories-feature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/panap_updates\/6505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/panap_updates"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/panap_updates"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/panap_updates\/6505\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6506"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"update_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/panap.net\/beta\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/update_categories?post=6505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}