MAY 2018

Data and new challenges for co-op governance:
A view from the agri sector
The rise of big data has brought a fresh raft
of governance issues to co-operatives across all
sectors, leaving them responsible for a huge store of
members’ information.
This is no less true of the agri sector, where big
data is having effects throughout the supply
chain. Smart sensors and devices are producing
information on such factors soil, weather and crop
performance that creates unprecedented decisionmaking
capabilities.
With this information shifting the roles and
relations between players in agriculture, there are
governance implications for data ownership, privacy
and security – an issue highlighted at last year’s
global conference of the International Cooperative
Alliance by Andrew Crane, former CEO of Australian
grain co-op CBH.
“Agriculture is one of last industries to get teched,”
he told delegates at a workshop on big data. “It’s
a physical product – how do we digitise that? But
there is scope with use of data to help farmers make
a return.
“Who owns the data? Modern farm equipment
captures a huge yield of data as it harvests crops.
Who owns that?”
Also on the panel was Bob Yuill, deputy chief
executive of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation
Society, about the governance implications for agri
co-ops and data.
Are co-op governance systems up to the task
of keeping pace with changes in technology?
As with any commercial organisation there is the
increasing danger of becoming irrelevant due to
disruptive forms of technology. In addition, there is
the issue with keeping up with technological change
that is increasing in pace. For example, sensor
technologies and Long Range Wide area networks
(LoRaWAN) coupled with vast processing power
will be disruptive as well as providing profound
opportunities.
How can these systems be made stronger?
Co-operative governance has to become much more
future-focused, competing with time used to monitor
historical happenstance. In simple terms this
means technology as a strategic subject should be a
consistent, if not a constant, agenda item, requiring
research, opportunity analysis and risk assessment.
At Kuala Lumpur, Andrew Crane said his co-op had
seen a conflict of interest with its own members
over ownership of agri data. How can governance
systems take account of this?
It’s less about ownership; data is much more
concerned about control – ownership and control
are two different concepts. Co-ops are able to define
and govern the concept of ‘data control in common’
and apply co-operative principles in this regard.
How is technology affecting the hiring of casual
and seasonal labour in agriculture? Does this pose
governance issues for agri co-ops?
We already have well matured labour and machinery
rings, who in Scotland are the most significant
suppliers of labour, training and apprenticeships
into Scottish agriculture. There are no overall
governance issues, quite the opposite, concerning
their level of member support and having clear
strategies to support labour providers, their training
and development needs.
How do these issues fit in with the wider
governance issues facing agri co-ops – such as
price volatility, uncertainty over subsidies, and
increased competition?
A clear focus for our agri co-ops is resilience,
developing their strategies to increase the resilience
of both the co-op itself and of their members and
families, through the use of technologies such as
precision farming and deployment of labour and
machines to areas of greatest need to deal with
difficult spring and harvest times, community
activity and so on. Our agri co-ops can demonstrate
excellent governance procedures that may be of
interest to others in our co-op family.
36 | MAY 2018