Policy regulation and frameworks

effect on achieving the SDGs. Key areas have been defined in which governments need to establish legal, regulatory, budgetary and policy frameworks to ensure that ICTs make an optimal contribution to sustainable development.²⁹ In many countries, policies or regulations hinder the introduction of digital technology, or simply stop it. Often such regulations pre-exist the digital age, and, without reform, remain as blockers. In other cases, governments introduce new rules which act as blockers. For example, Indonesia has a stated target to provide digital literacy to its population, yet there is no specific programme to encourage farmers to use digital technologies.

2.3.2.1 MNOs, licences and monopoly Traditionally, a licensing regime has been applied to authorize mobile operators to provide telecommunication services; however, as a result of rapid technological development and the convergence of networks and services, a more open authorization framework is now considered to be a good practice. Analysing countries based on their economic development, it is unclear whether more developed countries have more open or closed authorization. MNO regulations and policies are different from country to country, as well as from region to region. Although, some developing countries are more

open and push market liberation, because most of their territory is predominantly rural and remote, MNOs are not willing to invest in network coverage or broadband.

Instead, they are moving to the concept of “tower”

companies, wherein the main core of their infrastructure is outsourced to private companies. There are many successful examples of this, especially in India,³⁰ where competition is high and prices of telecom services rapidly decreased.

Efficient spectrum management, by the government or by MNO’s “tower” concept, will aid rollout of networks to rural and remote areas, because of digital dividend bands, reduced deployment costs and intensity of competitors providing these services (EBA World Bank, 2017).

There remains a need in most countries to modernize regulatory frameworks for the mobile sector. Authorities should be looking at two key areas for review and reform:

firstly, regulatory frameworks should be reviewed and updated to promote market dynamism, competition and consumer welfare, while discarding legacy rules that are no longer relevant in the context of the digital ecosystem.

Secondly, governments should reduce the sector-specific tax burden to encourage investment in new technologies.

By setting the right regulatory context, governments can create incentives for technological innovation and investment that would benefit all of society (GSMA, 2019).

As for broadband policies, many other policies and regulations on ICTs and MNOs do not correlate with the level of economic development of given country.

For example, Somalia, with its unregulated telecoms market, has higher mobile density than Ethiopia, which maintains a government monopoly.

Vibrant competition in mobile and fixed access should increase usage rates, whereas less competition can certainly hold this back. In Latin America, for example, the top priority for telecoms operators is to maximize average revenue per user (ARPU), which means that

Figure 2-41 Broadband policies per country, 2018.

Source: Alliance for Affordable Internet, 2018.

Costa Rica Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Côte d’Ivoire United Republic of Tanzania Cameroon Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Malawi Namibia Nicaragua Haiti Democratic Republic of the Congo Yemen

Figure 2-42 Policy and regulation for competition in the ICT sector and MNOs, 2018.

Source: Alliance for Affordable Internet, 2018.

Mexico United Republic of Tanzania Tunisia Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Guatemala Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Haiti Nicaragua Democratic Republic of the Congo Ethiopia Yemen

services are relatively expensive and are therefore consumed by lower numbers of users, especially

compared with their South Asian counterparts who have opted for a model based on increasing user numbers and usage. One factor is the lack of competition in many parts of Latin America, where telecoms provision is often a monopoly or a duopoly, whereas in much of South Asia there is competition between several providers (The Economist, 2012).

2.3.2.2 Data protection and privacy Governments collect large amounts of personal information for civil registries, social security, housing records and tax purposes. The collection of biometric data for passport issuance for identification purposes adds to a wealth of personal data that is collected, stored and managed by states through ICTs to increase efficiency and reduce bureaucracy. Often, governments face challenges to ensure a proper balance between the privacy rights of their citizens and national security.

With the rapid expansion of software and Web search engine companies, social network platforms and e-commerce, users disclose personal information that, although making service delivery and social networking more efficient and relevant, results in a massive amount of identifiable information that is owned, controlled and used by digital service providers (FAO, 2017).

A challenge for privacy is the expanding use of Big Data – data that are subject to complex automated discriminatory technologies – that can classify users and customers into categories according to their preferences, income, ethnicity, political views and other sensitive characteristics. The “Internet of things” that connects devices to the Internet, can also result in detailed user profiles and poses similar privacy challenges (FAO, 2017).

Many states have rules to ensure that personal data are protected – about 107 countries have privacy laws in place as of 2014, with half of these being developing countries (UNCTAD, 2015). These legal frameworks define the purposes for which personal data can be collected legitimately and establish rules for proper management and protection from misuse. For example, in the EU, the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (ePrivacy Directive) builds on the EU telecoms and data protection frameworks to ensure that all communications over public networks maintain respect for fundamental rights, in particular a high level of privacy, regardless of the technology used. This Directive was last updated in 2009 to provide clearer rules on customers’ rights to privacy.³¹

In 2013, the OECD published its Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, revising work originally carried out in the 1980s

to enhance privacy protection in a data-driven economy.

The Africa Union Convention on Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection provides for establishing legal frameworks aimed at strengthening fundamental rights and public freedoms, particularly concerning the protection of data. At the international level, in 2015 the United Nations Assembly adopted a resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age and appointed a special rapporteur on the right to privacy to ensure its promotion and protection, including in connection with the challenges arising from new technologies.³²

The UN Global Pulse, an innovation initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General to harness safely and responsibly the potential of Big Data for sustainable development and humanitarian action, has developed a set of Privacy Principles in consultation with its UN Data Privacy Advisory Group. The Group comprises experts from the public and private sectors, academia and civil society, and provides a forum for continuous dialogue on critical topics related to data protection and privacy and on how privacy-protected analysis of Big Data can contribute to sustainable development and humanitarian action.³³ Also, the United Nations System Organizations set out principles as a basic framework for the processing of “personal data”.³⁴ The issue of protecting personal information collected, stored and managed by ICTs becomes more complex, as personal data are being processed and transferred on a regular basis across national borders. There is no international binding agreement on cross-border digital data flows and in many countries although data protection and privacy laws are based on a common set of principles, they are locally adapted and often do not comply with each other (World Bank, 2016a).

Instead, digital data transfers, as well as digital trade, are often governed by bilateral, multilateral or plurilateral agreements. For example, The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation initiated the Crossborder Privacy Enforcement Arrangement Privacy Framework to underpin the free flow of information in Asia and the Pacific region to improve consumer confidence and ensure the growth of electronic commerce.³⁵ The US and the EU initiated a framework for transatlantic data flows – especially personal data of European consumers – in 2000 (Safe Harbor Agreement). In 2016, a new arrangement – the EU-US Privacy Shield – was negotiated establishing clear safeguards and transparency obligations on US companies that import personal data from the EU.³⁶

A new European regulation on data protection and security was introduced in April 2016 to strengthen the rights of citizens and give them greater control over their

personal data. However, this applies to personal data and primarily protects consumers; data generated by livestock or fields do not fall within the scope of the regulation.

Currently, the owner of the data is still, in most cases, the party that collects the data (manufacturers of tractors, milking robots, etc.) (PwC, 2016).

Clearly, data traffic is increasing. As the number of connected smartphones increases, data traffic, collection and generation will also increase. While the traffic collection and generation are deemed valuable, there are still numerous questions about managing the data. For example, in Nebraska (Canada), many survey respondents were comfortable sharing their data with trusted partners, such as university researchers or educators (45 percent), relatives (39 percent) and local cooperatives (39 percent). But more respondents trusted their data with “no one” (23 percent) than with equipment dealers (18 percent), equipment manufacturers (17 percent) or neighbours (13 percent).³⁷

2.3.3 EXISTING DIGITAL AGRICULTURE