The future of agricultural data-sharing policy in Europe: stakeholder insights on the EU Code of Conduct

The paper addresses how agricultural data-sharing in Europe should be governed amid evolving EU legislation. While increased data-sharing promises economic and sustainability gains, it must avoid harms such as privacy and IP infringements. The EU’s GDPR governs personal data, and the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation encourages sectoral codes like the EU Code of Conduct on Agricultural Data Sharing by Contractual Agreement (EUCC). Despite the EUCC’s farmer-oriented guidance since 2018, there is little evidence on its uptake and effectiveness. The new horizontal Data Act (2023/2024) provides binding data access and sharing rights but may not cover agricultural sector nuances. With the Data Act’s application starting in September 2025 and uncertainty about sector-specific obligations, this study explores the EUCC’s reception, implementation, and future role alongside the Data Act. The research goal is to determine whether and how the EUCC should be updated to address sector-specific gaps, support compliance with the Data Act, and improve trust, fairness, and interoperability in agricultural data-sharing.

The EUCC seeks to build trust and guide contractual data-sharing in agriculture through principles of data rights, access/portability, transparency, privacy/security, and liability/IP. Literature critiques focus on: (1) Voluntary nature: The EUCC lacks binding force, enforcement mechanisms, and can be undermined by contractual freedom (Gennen and Walter, Tomasso, Atik and Martens, Härtel, Amiri-Zarandi et al.). Calls exist for binding sectoral regulation. (2) Data lock-in and portability: Voluntary codes have not effectively addressed lock-in and weak farmer bargaining power; mandatory portability and interoperability are advocated, which the EUCC does not ensure. The Data Act helps but remains horizontally limited. (3) Data rights and ownership: Use of ‘data ownership’ is contested; transferable ownership could exacerbate power asymmetries. Scholars propose inalienable access rights and addressing power imbalances rather than ownership per se. (4) (Mis)trust: Persistent mistrust stems from unclear data rights, power asymmetries, privacy concerns, opaque licenses, and limited benefit sharing. Codes aiming at transparency and consent may not alone build trust without fair outcomes and stakeholder engagement. (5) Sectoral issues after the Data Act: The Data Act’s horizontal definitions (e.g., user, product, related service) leave gaps in agricultural contexts such as cooperative machinery, contractor-operated devices, or provider-installed sensors. Many advisory services fall outside ‘related services.’ Application timelines (2025–2026) create a transition gap. A sector-specific intervention or a substantially updated EUCC may be needed to address remaining sectoral issues and ensure interoperability and fair access.

The study employed a qualitative workshop approach within the AgriDataSpace project. Six workshops were held in April 2023: five national (Netherlands, Belgium, Romania, France, Finland) and one EU-wide, totalling 89 participants, including farmers, associations, agribusinesses, data-sharing initiatives, ICT providers, researchers, government, and societal parties. Participants were selected for experience with data sharing. Each workshop included: (1) small-group verification of literature-based issues with participants’ own experiences of the EUCC; (2) co-generation of recommendations. To refine future directions for the EUCC, additional rounds of feedback were gathered in Oct–Dec 2023 and Jan–Mar 2024 from project consortium partners (N=15), member state representatives (N=10), stakeholder committee (N=17), and advisory board (N=7), including legal expertise. These engagements informed proposals for aligning the EUCC with the Data Act, enforcement options, and sectoral nuances. Descriptive summaries of participant perspectives were compiled; tables reported workshop composition and thematic results.

Awareness and use: Across six workshops, about two-thirds of participants knew of the EUCC, but only a handful had used it to draft data-sharing contracts. EUCC awareness among farmers was low in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Finland; higher among Romanian farmers (via national dissemination); EU-level stakeholders were aware. Perceived value and barriers: Participants viewed the EUCC as informative for those familiar with digital-agri terminology and useful for structuring contracts and tools, but hampered by voluntary nature, lack of enforceability, and complex legal jargon that limits accessibility to non-experts. Voluntary nature: Stakeholders cited difficulty ensuring compliance and preventing reneging; suggested certification/quality marks to signal adherence; warned that greater legal density could alienate farmers. Data lock-in/interoperability: Significant concerns about lock-in, power asymmetries, high entry costs, and sectoral diversity complicating interoperability. Calls for stronger interoperability and rebalancing bargaining power (e.g., curbing unfair clauses). Data rights/ownership: Farmers often face unclear rights, hidden or hard-to-challenge contractual terms, and limited access to data from purchased equipment; participants requested clearer distinctions between personal/professional data, guidance on co-generated data (e.g., slaughterhouse contexts), and stronger farmer access rights (acknowledging EUCC’s limits as voluntary). Trust: Mistrust stems from fears of misuse by government, banks, insurers, or corporates; some advocated for more regulation beyond voluntary codes; education and awareness seen as vital to build trust. Future of EUCC with Data Act: Opinions diverged—some argued the Data Act renders the EUCC obsolete; many urged translating the Data Act for agriculture and updating the EUCC accordingly, including practical use cases, model contracts, aligned terminology, and attention to new roles (e.g., data intermediaries, consent managers).

Workshops indicate persistent need for sector-specific guidance despite the EUCC’s non-binding nature. The EUCC has informed contracts and initiatives but suffers from limited dissemination and perceived optionality compared to GDPR and the Data Act. The Data Act, while a major step, is horizontal and leaves notable agricultural gaps (definitions of user/product/related service, scenarios involving cooperatives, contractors, provider-installed sensors, advisory services outside scope) and applies only from Sept 2025/2026. Thus, abandoning the EUCC is premature. A revised EUCC could: (a) align terminology with the Data Act while remaining accessible to practitioners; (b) either transpose or adapt Data Act provisions to agricultural realities (e.g., clarifying rights over data collected on-farm regardless of device ownership; addressing co-generated data); (c) complement horizontal rules by tackling sectoral issues such as data portability and interoperability, grey areas around data categories, and trust-building measures. On governance design, stakeholders debated binding sectoral regulation versus voluntary instruments. While binding rules can correct market failures, concerns exist about overregulation and burdens on SMEs. As an immediate, feasible step, enhancing the EUCC’s soft enforcement (certification, public lists of compliant/non-compliant actors), model clauses, and practical examples could improve adoption and trust, while leaving open the possibility of future sector-specific regulation if needed.

The EUCC remains a foundational guide for agricultural data-sharing but requires a comprehensive update to stay relevant alongside the Data Act. An updated EUCC should align key definitions with the Data Act, incorporate practical use cases and model contractual terms, clarify GDPR-related notions (anonymisation/pseudonymisation) in agri contexts, propose soft enforcement and transparency mechanisms (e.g., certification/whitelists), and address sectoral priorities such as interoperability, lock-in reduction, co-generated data, and balanced data access across the farm-to-fork chain. Effective dissemination and education are essential to increase uptake, particularly among farmers and SMEs. Future research should broaden geographic coverage beyond six countries, detail implementation pathways for an updated EUCC, examine synergies between the EUCC and the Data Act, and draw lessons from other sectors’ soft-law experiences to inform possible future sectoral regulation.

The qualitative evidence is based on six workshops in selected countries and one EU-level session, not a representative sample of all EU Member States. Participant recruitment leveraged project networks, potentially biasing perspectives toward stakeholders already engaged in data-sharing initiatives. Findings rely on self-reported views and do not quantify adoption or compliance rates. Resource and time constraints precluded conducting workshops across all 27 Member States. The evolving legal context (Data Act not yet fully applicable during data collection) limits definitive conclusions about future compliance and impacts.