Strong call to implement farmers’ rights and resist UPOV 1991 and corporate capture

A recent international symposium flagged the dangers posed to farmers’ rights by UPOV 1991 and biopiracy.

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. Firstly, from corporate-driven regimes, especially the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 1991). Secondly, unresolved contradictions in the functioning of the ITPGRFA’s Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing (MLS). These are alongside major gaps in funding, policy coherence, and realisation of farmers’ rights as human rights.

The Symposium was convened by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and ITPGRFA. Participants included representatives from governments, civil society organisations, farmers’ groups and international organisations.

Legal and structural barriers raised by UPOV 1991 and trade agreements

The Symposium celebrated innovative farmer-led programmes 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 operationalise Article 9 of the ITPGRFA on farmers’ rights – in many cases, farmer-managed seed systems 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 conditions tagged onto development aid. African and Asian groups reported that in some cases, UPOV 1991–compliant laws criminalised farmers’ customary practices of saving, exchanging and selling seeds. Such regimes not only are in direct contradiction to farmers’ rights and erode traditional knowledge and local autonomy, but also reduce crop diversity and intensify social inequalities and rural poverty. Fragmented, incomplete frameworks leave communities exposed to privatisation pressures and ‘capture’ of their seeds and knowledge by multinational seed corporations.

Speakers condemned the dominant narrative that corporate seed systems provide unequivocal benefit and debunked claims of increased productivity. They also pointed to how these systems exclude or actively undermine 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 criminalisation of farmer practices. Calls were made for the categorical denouncement of UPOV 1991 for 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 decried 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 non-governmental organisations (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 MLS lacks real-time tracking, transparency and local accountability, with repeated evidence that most accessions to the MLS benefit commercial actors rather than farmers, and real fears of the same then being monopolised under intellectual property rights frameworks.

Statistics show that to date, more than seven million accessions of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) have been shared via the MLS to more than 28,000 identified users; however, only six 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 regional network of civil society and farmer groups, submitted a statement to the ITPGRFA Secretariat ahead of the upcoming 11th meeting of the Treaty’s Governing Body in Lima, Peru (24–29 November 2025). The statement (reproduced below) was shared with country delegates present at the Manila Symposium. It called specifically for all ITPGRFA Contracting Parties to urgently and robustly safeguard farmers’ rights in the implementation of the MLS. RAISE Asia emphasised: ‘Any resolutions aimed at enhancing the MLS must incorporate concomitant obligations to the full and effective realisation 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 utilised through the MLS. Strengthening the MLS must prioritise 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.’

In addition, a global sign-on was submitted to FAO and the 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 of the Symposium, 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 fulfil 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 recognised and enforced as human rights, requiring active integration with 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) and other human-rights-based approaches.                       

Karina Yong is a senior researcher with the Third World Network, where she specialises in the impact of investment and trade agreements on human rights and environmental and other laws and policies in developing and least-developed countries. This includes analysing the implications of multilateral agreements, UN treaties/conventions, investment treaties and the investment chapters of free trade agreements on human rights such as the right to health, the right to food, indigenous rights and responsible business conduct. Karina was a lead author of the Malaysian Competition Commission’s market review of the pharmaceutical sector which investigated the factors influencing the affordability and availability of medicines in the country. Prior to joining TWN, Karina worked as a litigation lawyer in areas of civil, administrative, constitutional and environmental law.

SUB-ARTICLE

Statement of RAISE Asia partners¹ on the Second Global Symposium on Farmers’ Rights

The following statement by RAISE Asia, a coalition of civil society and farmer organisations (including the Third World Network), was issued at the Manila Symposium and presented to the ITPGRFA Secretariat.

The implementation of farmers’ rights remains at the core of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).

In the first global symposium, smallholder farmers have been generously praised and recognised in the conservation, development, and sustainable use of PGRFA.

We thank the secretariat of the treaty for the document ‘Draft assessment of the state of implementation of Article 9 of the International Treaty’, which provides the gaps and needs in the implementation of farmers’ rights such as fragmented legal frameworks, weak institutional coordination, insufficient financial and human resources, regulatory and market barriers to farmer-managed seed systems, limited public awareness, and socio-economic inequalities, and in some regions, gender-related barriers. We urge the Governing Body to address these concerns soonest.

Additionally,

1. We also refer participants to the Governing Body’s decisions in Resolution 7/2022² and Resolution 14/2022³, which was reiterated in Resolutions 7/2023⁴ and 14/2023.⁵ These resolutions request the Secretary to collaborate, particularly with international human rights bodies to realise farmers’ rights. While such collaboration was identified in the Work Programme for the 2024–2025 Biennium, no activities occurred on the cooperation between the International Treaty and the UN human rights bodies to promote the implementation of Farmers’ Rights. We urge the Secretary to please breathe life to the mentioned resolutions and coordinate with the Working Body of the UNDROP since this is the most relevant international human rights body regarding farmers’ rights;

2.    We also urge Contracting Parties to adopt the Voluntary Guidelines for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Farmers’ Varieties/Landraces. This comprehensive document provides guidance that national governments may use for conserving and sustainably using farmers’ varieties and landraces; and is helpful for contracting parties to develop their National Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Farmers’ Varieties/Landraces.

3.    We call on all Contracting Parties to urgently and robustly safeguard farmers’ rights in the implementation of the Multilateral System on Access and Benefit Sharing (MLS). Any resolutions aimed at enhancing the MLS must incorporate concomitant obligations to the full and effective realisation of fair and equitable benefit sharing arising from the use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA). This includes guaranteeing farmers’ right to timely and meaningful information regarding activities involving their seeds, especially when those seeds are collected, shared, or utilised through the MLS. Strengthening the MLS must prioritise effective governance mechanisms to ensure benefits derived from PGRFA and digital sequence information (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 Annex 1.

We need to go beyond the recognition and appreciation showered on smallholder farmers as stewards and responsible custodians of PGRFA. This time around, we need to ensure and realise their right to equitably participate in sharing nonmonetary and monetary benefits arising from the utilisation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

Notes

1. RAISE Asia stands for Rights-based and Agroecological Initiatives for Sustainability and Equity in Asia, consisting of 24 partners across 12 countries in Asia that work for strengthening peasants’ rights through regional networks of farmers, pastoralists, farm workers, women and youth.

2. Resolution 7/2022: Implementation of Article 9, Farmers’ Rights – Article 14: ‘Requests the Secretary to strengthen, to the extent feasible, collaboration between the International Treaty and other units and partners that work for the promotion of Farmers’ Rights within and outside FAO, and the broader United Nations including with international human rights bodies, in order to promote the realization of Farmers’ Rights’.

3. Resolution 14/2022: Cooperation with Other International Bodies and Organizations – Article 13: ‘Requests the Secretary to continue to report to the Governing Body on cooperation with other relevant international bodies and organizations, including with the Human Rights Council and other international human rights bodies, and related collaborative activities’.

4. Resolution 7/2023: Implementation of Article 9, Farmers’ Rights – Article 14: ‘Requests the Secretary to strengthen, to the extent feasible, collaboration between the International Treaty and other units and partners that work for the promotion of Farmers’ Rights within and outside FAO, and the broader United Nations including with international human rights bodies and the relevant targets of the GBF, in order to promote the protection and realization of Farmers’ Rights in accordance with Article 9 of the International Treaty’.

5. Resolution 14/2023: Cooperation with Other International Bodies and Organizations – Article 14: ‘Requests the Secretary to continue to report to the Governing Body on cooperation with other relevant international bodies and organizations, including with the Human Rights Council and other international human rights bodies, and related collaborative activities’.

*Third World Resurgence No. 364, 2025/3, pp 14-17