Data has become the world’s most valuable resource. In critical sectors like agriculture, the ability to govern, exchange, and use data is now a question of sovereignty as much as productivity.

In an exclusive interview, Trade Treasury Payments (TTP) Trade and Technology Editor, Carter Hoffman, spoke with Dr Benjamin Kwasi Addom, Adviser, Agriculture and Fisheries Trade Policy at the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda, about the Commonwealth’s new National Agricultural Data Infrastructure (NAgDI) model.

Together, they explore how countries can move from fragmented datasets to a coordinated digital infrastructure capable of powering trade, investment, and innovation across the Commonwealth.

From data dependence to digital sovereignty

CH: You describe agricultural data as a national resource (much like oil or gold). Why has data become so central to food security and digital sovereignty for Commonwealth countries?

BA: Data has been central to food security and digital sovereignty for countries for decades. The centrality of data has come into the limelight more recently (in the past decade) because of the emergence of digital technologies. Digital technologies are making data management (i.e. the collection, curation, processing, storage, and sharing) easier. As a result, those who have the technology to manage data are winning.

In fact, we are witnessing a movement in much the same way that the oil industry shaped economic power players in the past. Individuals and companies are racing to invest in data management, but most low- and middle-income countries are being left behind. But the race is not just about the quantity of data being generated by individual entities, it’s about how the data is governed, exchanged and used to benefit people and societies. That is where digital sovereignty comes.

CH: Across the Commonwealth, agricultural data is often fragmented, duplicated, and siloed. What are the real-world consequences of this fragmentation, and why has it persisted for so long?

BA: I wish to state here that there is nothing wrong with data duplication. In fact, multiple datasets on the same parameter, for example, post-harvest lost percentage of a commodity in a country, help validate and strengthen the data point. The challenge comes when these multiple datasets don’t talk to each other and when there is no communication between them. When this happens, multiple entities or data holders report conflicting datasets about the same parameter. So NAgDI comes in at the country level to streamline these multiple datasets before it is reported as one figure supported by multiple datasets.

The real-world consequences can be seen in operational inefficiencies – more resources such as time, labour, finance are used to achieve a particular output than required; data-collection fatigue on individuals – smallholder farmers and rural communities are overwhelmed with data enumerators day after day gathering the same data that some other entity might have collected few days or weeks ago; poor investment or policy decisions being made on fragmented data points – for example national governments may make national policy decision based on only government data with no access to private sector data; and finally, power imbalance between data owners and data holders – while the datasets are on the smallholder farmers and they should be considered as the data owners, the power to use the data has been shifted to those who have the technologies to manage the data, thereby leading to an imbalance of power.

CH: The report warns that without coordinated action, countries risk “weak digital sovereignty.” What does that mean in practice for governments and citizens?

BA: The definition of digital sovereignty provided in Gawen et al. (2021) states that it is the power and authority of a national government to make free decisions affecting citizens and businesses within the digital domain. Hence, weak digital sovereignty occurs when national governments do not have the required data to make free decisions. Then the power and authority shift to those who have the data. The inability of national governments to exercise their power and authority to make free decisions affecting their citizens and businesses within the digital domain, because they don’t have the required data, is the weak digital sovereignty. NAgDI will empower countries to create the enabling environment for businesses to generate data, and at the same time allow countries to have sovereignty over their data for public benefit.

Understanding the NAgDI model

CH: NAgDI is proposed as a national infrastructure for agricultural data. How would you explain the concept to a policymaker or minister hearing about it for the first time?

BA: NAgDI is a national “space” or infrastructure for data exchange. It is a national space supported by the right technologies and systems, guided by agreed policies and principles, administered by an independent governance mechanism and supported by business models for sustainability. Each data holder retains the right over their data and only gives consent to what they wish to release.

The data consumer follows the agreed principles and accesses the data points facilitated by NAgDI and uses the data according to the principles. A policymaker who needs to import commodities to a country to meet the demand of its citizens will not only depend on government data but also seek data from other private sector data holders to validate the government data before importing products. Hence, informing accurate policy decisions.

CH: You’ve used a road-infrastructure analogy to describe the model. How does that help countries understand the different pillars components (from policy and governance to technology and business sustainability)?

BA: Unfortunately, we use infrastructure globally in a limited sense to mean “technical” things. For example, when we hear telecom infrastructure, our eyes go to cell towers or cables; when we hear air transport infrastructure, we see the runways and the buildings at the airport; when someone mentions rail infrastructure, we see the rail lines.

Road infrastructure is easy to understand. We see the tarmac on which the vehicles and pedestrians use, we see bridges, and we see safety rails along the streets. All these are the technologies and systems of the road infrastructure. But that is not all. Without the markings on the tarmac, without the speed limits, without the stop signs, exit signs, if there is no agreed age to secure a license and to stop driving, there will be accidents every time. Hence, these are the policies and principles guiding the use of the technologies and systems.

What about a police officer with a speed gun on the highway, the speed cameras, the traffic light cameras? They all help to enforce the rules and principles. Hence, that is the governance and administration part of the road infrastructure. And finally, in some countries, you pay tolls when you drive on the highway, while in others, you pay road tax as soon as you own a vehicle. When we violate any of the rules, we pay a fine. All these help generate revenue to maintain the road,  fill potholes, and replace broken-down signboards. Hence, the marketing and business component of the road infrastructure.

This is how we apply the road infrastructure analogy to NAgDI – that infrastructure is not just the technical component. NAgDI takes a holistic approach to infrastructure.

Building the foundation: implementation and collaboration

CH: The guide sets out a five-year roadmap for countries to build their NAgDI. What are the most critical early steps, and what tends to determine whether a country succeeds or stalls?

BA: Each of these five years will be critical for the success of the infrastructure. But for the first year, it is strongly recommended that the government identifies a ministry to lead the process. That leadership will be key. And to make the work of this ministry a bit easier, the next step is to get the highest-level endorsement for the infrastructure to be built. That opens the door for engagement of multiple stakeholders to begin resource mobilisation.

We also advise that good analysis be done to build on the progress made by the country in all four components of NAgDI. We don’t think there is a need to go and reinvent the wheel. So that will depend on identifying who has been doing what and how to build on them. Therefore, the design, development, and launch will be easy – they will be about identifying, collating, and assembling the various parts of the puzzle.

We also emphasise the need for governments to reduce upfront investment into this infrastructure by considering it as a national infrastructure and not government infrastructure. By doing so, institutional levies and seed funds will get every stakeholder investing in the agricultural sector in the country on board. Once they invest in the national infrastructure, they will not bypass it to go and build any parallel infrastructure.

CH: You’ve led multi-stakeholder dialogues in Malawi, Ghana, Bangladesh, and the Caribbean. What lessons from those experiences stand out about collaboration between governments, the private sector, and farmers?

BA: Collaboration is a complex issue, and there is a need for a win-win for all stakeholders. One of the key lessons is that there are more similarities than differences amongst countries in the data management issues. But at the same time, there are promising practices to be shared to give visibility of investments and other technical activities being carried out in the domain.

Also, the issue is not unique to the agricultural sector. Data is sector-agnostic, meaning the same farmer also has health issues, water and sanitation issues, and education issues. Hence, NAgDI is just a use case for agriculture, and there is a need to scale it up to a national data infrastructure in general.

NAgDI implementation should also take a modular but coordinated approach. NAgDI is a holistic model; different types of its components are being implemented in different national contexts. Hence, the implementation of NAgDI should not be seen as something completely new – rather, as a coordination mechanism for existing individual and siloed initiatives.

CH: Independent governance is a cornerstone of NAgDI. How can countries balance the need for public oversight with the flexibility required for innovation and private participation?

BA: That is the exact reason NAgDI recommends an independent governance and administration mechanism. Data is a sensitive national resource. Leaving it in the hands of one private sector entity might not be the best way. But at the same time, leaving it in the hands of the national government might also drive the private sector away. What the independent governance mechanism is saying is to have a neutral custodian, a steward on behalf of the data holders. It can take all kinds of models depending on the country.

The closest real-world example that we give is the Credit Bureaus. They are mandated by governments of sovereign states, and they operate independently of the government. It has to be a public oversight, but not government oversight. Governments still have overall sovereignty over the companies and businesses operating in their countries. And NAgDI just creates the enabling environment to have the third eye on what is happening in terms of data flow – secure, of course.

Looking ahead: connecting data, AI, and the Commonwealth

CH: Finally, looking to the next decade, how do you see NAgDI helping Commonwealth nations prepare for the age of artificial intelligence and the digital economy more broadly?

BA: The vision of the Commonwealth on NAgDI is to see multiple NAgDIs across the Commonwealth functioning at the national level. Once that happens, the Commonwealth as a family could securely connect these NAgDIs in support of intra-Commonwealth trade and investment, creating a superhighway for data exchange in support of the movement of goods and services between member countries.

Regarding Artificial Intelligence, I think the big question is what does it mean to the smallholder farmer, the livestock trader between Tanzania and Kenya, the policy maker at the Ministry of Agriculture in Fiji, the agricultural college student at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, the young digital agricultural innovator based in Kingston, etc? We have all been benefiting from AI for decades now. So what is the difference now? Why is everyone talking about it? The answer is probably the availability and accessibility of large volumes of data, which is being made possible by digital innovations.

But what happens when our smallholder agricultural data systems are in silos and locked individually, with no possibility of interoperability between them? The AI-enabled services will be a mirage for smallholder agriculture – we will see and hear but not get there. We will continue to enjoy the piecemeal services that we have been getting from the hundreds of digital platforms in our countries, but we will not enjoy the similar quality of accurate, precise, and customised services that other industries like entertainment, etc., are experiencing.

Functional NAgDI in countries are expected to make large volumes of datasets available and accessible on request and with consent. By so doing, a digital agriculture service provider located in the norther regions of Uganda who does not have data in the southern part of the country can have access to large volumes of multiple datasets, already generated by other partners in the south without any upfront investment in data collection in the south of Uganda to feed into their AI models to support more accurate advisory services. They will also be able to access multiple datasets by other partners in the north of Uganda and validate what they already have, thereby strengthening the AI model.

The datasets from other partners will be accessible through the data exchange technologies and systems, and by following the agreed policies and principles of the country, they will be able to access the data and pay a cheaper cost than the cost of going to collect the same datasets. The entire exchange process will be managed by an independent entity mandated by the government of the country to ensure that the exchange technologies are working, people are following the rules, and revenues are being generated to sustain the infrastructure.

This is the opportunity that NAgDI will create for individual member countries and then across the Commonwealth, not only for AI but for a range of other benefits.