Chapter 5: Commonwealth Pacific
Policy recommendations to fast-track digitalisation of agriculture in the Pacific
Recommendations: Digital innovations
Recommendations: Data infrastructure
Recommendations: Business development services
Recommendations: Enabling environment
Lessons learned from Australia & New Zealand
Conclusions
Pillar 1
Digital innovations
Gaps (factors limiting innovation and scalability in digital agriculture)
- Existence of a significant number of largely subsistence farmers. As noted by FAO, several farms in the Pacific Island countries are smallholders that predominately use male family labour. As is the case with several other smallholder farmers in other regions like Africa and Asia, the incentive to consume digital agriculture solutions based on profitability remains largely non-existent due to minimal mechanisation and the use of inputs. This effectively reduces the consumer bracket of digital agriculture solutions in the region.
- Low state-provided expenditure on Government research and development into digital agriculture and smart farming technologies. The Governments in the region have not made significant investments in research and development of digital agriculture solutions. In the absence of large-scale private entities in the region that can spend on digital agriculture research as is the case in countries with high per capita gross national incomes, this leaves a funding void for the development of digital agriculture solutions in the region.
- Existence of a lower mobile subscriber base – The Pacific Islands region is seeing only modest mobile subscriber growth at a time when subscriber penetration rates remain well below regional and global developed market averages. Only 38 per cent of the population subscribed to a mobile service as at the end of 2018, this trails the average for least developed countries (44 per cent). Low mobile connectivity effectively means that most of the farmers in the region do not have mobile-enabled internet appliances which are usually the primary connection medium for most smallholder farmers.
- Lack of coordinated and organised innovation ecosystems. Most Pacific SIDS still lack properly developed innovation ecosystems due to the limited size of the individual markets. The absence of a coordinated innovation ecosystem effectively slows down the development, testing and roll-out of digital agriculture solutions.
A. A. Use support measures to provide support to actors in the sector that has a potential to promote (champion) investments that are building the rails for digitalisation of agriculture
A.1 Provide R&D support, including R&D incentives, funding for basic research and R&D grants.
Private sector expenditure in agricultural R&D is usually the primary means of financing in regions with large per capita gross national incomes. The Pacific Island countries on the other hand do not have large private entities with the capital to spend on precision and other agricultural innovation research. Additionally, there is also the option for Government to invest directly in digital agriculture research
A.2 Provision of targeted subsidies in the region to facilitate the adoption of the digital agricultural solution.
In some cases, the Governments in countries with many smallholder farmers can facilitate adoption by footing the initial cost of digital solution adoption
A.3 Formulation of strategic partnerships with international bodies and technology companies.
In some cases, national and regional Governments have partnered with international development bodies to deliver quality digital agriculture solutions at no cost to smallholder farmers that would otherwise have been unable to afford them
Pillar 2
Data infrastructure
Gaps in the data infrastructure required for digitalisation of agriculture in the Pacific SIDS to thrive
- There is an inadequate amount of data on the agriculture sector and innovations going on in the region, specifically the progress of rolled out solutions in the Agritech space.
- Where bulk data is collected by the Government, this is not available to private sector actors through open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).
- Absence of robust linkages among different forms of identifiers. In the ideal arrangement, person identifier data (such as national identification) is linked to farm data such as soil property data, land titles and livestock data. This linked data set is then used to create advanced digital agriculture solutions by enabling the creation of solutions that are based on the relationships in such data sets. From the deep dive into the literature review, most of the countries in the Pacific SIDS have customary and informally registered land. In scenarios where identifiers are present, there are hardly linkages among the different identifiers issued.
C. Boost investment in data infrastructure and their key enablers
C.1 Governments should increase efforts to build robust national Agri statistical systems
The presence of such robust systems would ensure that the roll-out of digital solutions is informed by the specific needs and requirements of farmers, hence increasing the likelihood of solution adoption by farmers
C.2 Distribution of weather data collected by state entities in the region
Distribution of weather data creates an opportunity for digital solution developers in the region to include Government-provided weather data in their digital solutions at no cost. This can specifically be done using government-provided APIs that are provided to make data available to digital solution developers at a subsidised cost
C.3 Soil data collection and distribution should be undertaken by Government entities
Collection and distribution of soil data avail a critical ingredient of the national agricultural data infrastructure especially provided in a digital form and can be linked to weather and land identifier data to facilitate the prediction of farm yields
C.4 Invest in formalisation and digitalisation of land tenure for smallholder farming entities.
Governments in the region should formalise land tenure and create linkages between digital farmland registries and person identifiers. This would be a welcome first step in the creation of the initial “data rails” on which the whole digitalisation of agriculture process will run
C.5 Investing in farmer data protection legislation
Having legislation that protects farmers from exploitation by digital solution developers would enhance confidence in the consumption of digital solutions by rural farmers. If well enforced, the regulation would act as a safety net for the interests of smallholder farmers with regard to the ethical use of farmer data
Pillar 3
Business development services
Gaps (factors hindering the flow of financing to digital innovations in agriculture)
- Low state-provided expenditure on Government research and development into smart farming. The Governments in the region have not made a significant investment into research and development of digital agriculture solutions. In the absence of large-scale private entities in the region that can spend on digital agriculture research as is the case in countries with high per capita gross national incomes, this leaves a funding void for the development of digital agriculture solutions in the region.
D. Work through sector champions to graduate smallholders and unlock systemic constraints
D.1 Support smallholder farmers in their transition to commercial agriculture from small-scale agriculture.
This could be through creating linkages to input and output markets Governments can do this through partnerships with large off-takers. The nature of the partnership would entail Governments encouraging off-takers to source from smallholders and in return accept to guarantee risks and losses that off-takers incur Additionally, Governments could work through development partners that are active in different value chains to implement this model
D.2 Incentivise solution providers to sell products through cooperatives instead of directly through smallholders
One of the business models that has shown to be most sustainable in regions such as in Asia is selling products through cooperatives. Uptake tends to be higher since farmers feel a sense of togetherness and trust when neighbours and colleagues are using the same offerings
The Base
Enabling environment
Gaps in the enabling environment required for digitalisation of agriculture to thrive
- Largely absent smart farming regulation. There is a void of regulation that covers emerging trends in the use of big data, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and Blockchain in the facilitation of digital agriculture. Such regulation is critical for the growth and use of digital agriculture.
- Tax policy that increases the cost of mobile devices. As of 2018, Pacific SIDS had higher import tariff rates on mobile devices as compared to The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and world averages. While it may be argued that this is a prudent fiscal measure, it could have an adverse effect on accessing several affordable ICT goods (including mobile phone devices). For most smallholder farmers, mobile devices are in many cases the primary access medium for digital agriculture solutions. High import tariffs make them prohibitively expensive which excludes many potential consumers simply because of the initial cost of access to a mobile device.
E. Investment in putting in place an infrastructure required for digitalisation to thrive and formulate policies that are in tune with technology evolution
E.1 Provide and extend digital infrastructure as fibre infrastructure.
Direct Government expenditure in the expansion of the national terrestrial backbone would ensure that even areas that mobile network operators do not deem lucrative such as remote islands with small populations equally get the opportunity to get a broadband coverage
E.2 Increased Government expenditure to close the growing electricity grid coverage gap.
Investing in increasing electricity grid coverage would enable mobile network operators to extend coverage to remote areas with lower operating costs since they would not have to seek alternative means to power their cell sites
Lessons from the digital agricultural environment in Australia and New Zealand
Government partnerships with the Private Sector to foster e-resilience.
The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have formed strategic regional partnerships with private sector players to build and cost-effectively maintain the countries' international submarine connections. This has facilitated development and maintenance of several submarine cable connections. Other island countries in the Commonwealth can also take the direction of public-private partnerships to foster e-resilience, especially those in places when the maintenance of sub-marine connections is subject to the effects of climate change.1
Governments should update regulations regarding smart farming in the region.
The Australian authorities as early as 2002 went ahead to have a major overhaul of these regulations. By the end of early 2016, the updated regulations had taken effect. This hence means that the use of unmanned aerial technology in the country is overseen by the national Governments of the regions. With agriculture projected to be the major consuming sector for drones by the end of 2027, many Commonwealth countries can follow in the Australian Government footsteps in the creation of legislation that will enable the safe and effective use of drones, as they continue to take a more dominant role in global smart farming.2
Creation of agricultural export farmer registries.
The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have both invested in the development and regular updating of national agricultural export farmer registries. These foster trust in the exported products of the countries in the destination of the exported commodities due to the presence of a digital export registry that enhances product traceability. Many Commonwealth countries on the other hand grow agricultural produce for export but have no state-provided digital solutions to enhance product traceability.3
Government roll-out of smart farming subsidies.
With the nationwide implementation of programmes such as the National Agricultural Innovation Agenda, the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have included the development and mainstream adoption of smart farming technologies into their national agriculture policies. In many other Commonwealth countries, smart farming is largely dominated by private sector activity. The involvement of the public sector in the development of digital agriculture through drafting regulation, and the significant spending on smart farming research and development greatly lowers the risk shouldered by the private sector.4
Commonwealth Pacific
Conclusions
In conclusion, the most undeveloped element of the D4Ag structure in this region is the ‘base’ of an enabling environment.
As witnessed in the Caribbean Island countries, the often-challenging topography is a major limiter to the provision of mobile coverage. In addition, low population densities in several remote locations and a relatively modest population cause operators and other ecosystem players often struggle to scale up the provision of relatively small services and deployments in a cost-effective manner. Addressing these may require collaboration between players from across the mobile ecosystem, as well as a supportive regulatory and policy environment that encourages investment and innovation. Partnerships between public and private sector players may be the ultimate initiative that influences the roll-out of wireless broadband coverage to locations that may be too remote and sparsely populated to be considered lucrative by the private sector.
The following are necessary for the recommendations to yield results.
Capacity building at a policy level is required.
Capacity building of key decision-makers is necessary to empower them to make rules and regulations that are responsive to the fast-paced nature of technology innovations. In addition, empowering policy-makers in the region will enable them, identify, develop and roll out digital solutions with the most potential to transform the region’s agriculture. Capacity building could be through the following:
- Facilitating benchmark visits to other Commonwealth countries where laws on technology are updated.
- Working with capacity-building partners who would carry out a capacity gap assessment and thereafter develop targeted capacity-building programmes.
- Identification of a capacity-building partner to develop and roll out the relevant programmes.
- There is a need to use an integral programming approach that involves different ministries as opposed to using only the ICT ministry.
Footnotes
1 Global System for Mobile Communications (2020). The mobile economy North America. https://data.gsmaintelligence.com/research/research/research-2020/the-mobile-economy-north-america-2020#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20mobile%20technologies%20and,almost%20%24100%20billion%20through%20taxation
2 Food and Agriculture Organisation (2018). E-agriculture In Action: Drones For Agriculture.
3 http://www.bom.gov.au/catalogue/data-feeds.shtml (accessed on July 14, 2021).
4 https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/from-australia/documentation-registration-licensing (accessed on July 14, 2021).