|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Sep25/03) Strong call to implement farmers’ rights, resist UPOV 1991 and corporate capture Penang, 22 September (Karina Yong) – At the Second Global Symposium on Farmers’ Rights in Manila (16–19 September 2025), participants voiced deep concerns about the direction and effectiveness of current implementation of farmers’ rights under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). While remarkable initiatives led by the Global South showcased how farmers remain true custodians of seeds and agricultural heritage, the event’s proceedings highlighted two persistent and rising threats. First, from corporate-driven regimes, especially the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (UPOV 1991). Secondly, unresolved contradictions in the functioning of the ITPGRFA’s Multilateral System on access and benefit sharing. These are alongside major gaps in funding, policy coherence, and realization of farmers’ rights as human rights. The Symposium was convened by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and ITPGRFA. Legal and Structural barriers raised by UPOV 1991 and Trade Agreements The Symposium celebrated innovative farmer-led programs across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, including farmer-managed seed systems, agroecology alliances, and constitutional protections for indigenous custodianship. Yet, speakers repeatedly noted the alarming disconnect between these advances and the reality that most farmers face: national laws often fail to operationalize Article 9 of the ITPGRFA on farmers’ rights – in many cases farmer-managed seed systems (FMSS) remain systematically excluded or disadvantaged by seed laws and regulatory standards, particularly due to UPOV 1991. Pressure to join UPOV 1991 comes through trade deals with developed countries, loan conditionalities from the international financial institutions or tagged onto development aid. African and Asian groups reported that in some cases, UPOV 1991-compliant laws criminalized farmers’ customary practices of saving, exchanging, and selling seeds. Such regimes are not only in direct contradiction to farmers’ rights, erode traditional knowledge and local autonomy, but also reduce crop diversity, intensify social inequalities and rural poverty. Fragmented, incomplete frameworks leave communities exposed to privatization pressures and “capture” of their seeds and knowledge by multinational seed corporations. Speakers condemned the dominant narrative that corporate seed systems provide unequivocal benefit, debunked claims of increased productivity, while excluding or actively undermining local and heirloom varieties which offer proven resilience and nutritional value. Participants stressed the need for robust legislative reform to remove barriers within seed laws, protect farmers’ ability to save, use, exchange, and sell seed, and resist criminalization of farmer practices. Calls were made for the categorical denouncement of UPOV 1991 in its dissonance with farmers´ rights, with recommendations that countries of the South refrain from accession and not be pressured to accede. Lack of Funding and Land Security Participants also emphasized chronic underfunding for farmers’ rights implementation across the Global South, coupled with insufficient public awareness and participation at all levels. Projects often depend on short-term external grants, and exist as a result of civil society efforts, leaving community seed banks and on-farm conservation activities unsustainable and fragile after donor cycles end. Land tenure insecurity further undermines the position of farmers as seed guardians. Expansion of MLS: Risks, Governance Gaps, and Biopiracy South-based NGOs and farmers’ groups were also wary of amendment proposals to expand the scope of Annex 1 of the ITPGRFA, which will subject virtually all agricultural genetic resources—including in situ crops and landraces—to multinational access with scant protection for sovereign and community rights. The current governance system of the Treaty´s Multilateral System on Access and Benefit Sharing (MLS) lacks real-time tracking, transparency, and local accountability, with repeated evidence that most accessions to the MLS benefit commercial actors rather than farmers, with real fears of the same then being monopolized under intellectual property rights frameworks. Statistics show that to date, more than 7 million accessions of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) have been shared via MLS to more than 28,000 identified users; however only 6 of them have shared any monetary benefits with the MLS so far. Weak safeguards for digital sequence information (DSI) further expose the risk of digital biopiracy, where corporations access and use genetic data with no obligation for fair and equitable benefit-sharing with originating countries or communities. RAISE Asia, a coalition of 24 civil society partners consisting of a regional network of civil society organisations and farmers, and including women and youth, across 12 countries in Asia, submitted a statement to the ITPGRFA Secretariat, ahead of the upcoming 11th meeting of the Governing Body in Lima, Peru (24-29 November 2025). RAISE Asia called specifically for all ITPGRFA Contracting Parties to urgently and robustly safeguard farmers’ rights in the implementation of the MLS. The coalition emphasised that “any resolutions aimed at enhancing the MLS must incorporate concomitant obligations to the full and effective realization of fair and equitable benefit sharing arising from the use of PGRFA. This includes guaranteeing farmers’ right to timely and meaningful information regarding activities involving their seeds, especially when those seeds are collected, shared, or utilized through the MLS. Strengthening the MLS must prioritize effective governance mechanisms to ensure benefits derived from PGRFA and DSI of PGRFA are genuinely and equitably shared. Concrete improvements in transparency, accountability, and participatory oversight are essential prerequisites before any expansion of the scope of (the treaty’s Annex 1”. The statement was read out and formally submitted to the ITPGRFA Secretariat and shared with country delegates present at the event. In addition, a global sign-on had been submitted to the FAO and ITPGRFA Secretariat by the Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch (India Seed Sovereignty Alliance) expressing the same concerns (https://seedtreaty.org/). Calls for Coherence: Farmers’ Rights as Human Rights Across all sessions, the message from southern government delegates was clear: only a rights-based, farmer-first framework, grounded in human rights, food sovereignty, and participatory governance can genuinely fulfill the promise and obligations of the ITPGRFA and address the inequities and risks posed by expanding Annex 1 and MLS access and corporate capture. The ITPGRFA’s implementation must align with international human rights instruments, notably the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). Participants stressed that the articles within the ITPGRFA have to be construed as a cohesive whole to give primacy to farmers’ rights, and the ITPGRFA must be explicitly recognized and enforced as human rights, requiring active integration with CEDAW, UNDRIP, ICESCR, and other human rights-based approaches. Note: CEDAW: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women UNDRIP: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
|
||
