A new communication initiative has recently been launched in Colombia with the aim of bringing academic knowledge closer to the general public. It is a podcast series led by the Institute of Intercultural Studies and the Specialisation in Agrarian Jurisdiction at Universidad Javeriana in Cali, in partnership with the Observatory of Rural Lands. The initiative seeks to transform recent research into accessible and engaging content, expanding the reach of key debates on the rights of rural peoples.

On air for about a month, the project embraces clear language and multimedia formats to engage with peasant organisations, rural workers, Indigenous communities, pastoralists, and fisherpeople. The initiative publishes around two pieces of content per month, combining audio and written formats, making specialised knowledge more accessible to diverse audiences.

The topics addressed are rooted in the Colombian context but go beyond national borders. Episodes include reflections relevant to Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as global analyses, such as land concentration and its social, economic, and political implications. In this way, the podcast establishes itself as a space for the circulation of critical knowledge on contemporary agrarian issues.

Readers and interested audiences from different regions are invited to explore and follow this initiative. Episodes, available in Spanish and English, can be accessed at https://soundcloud.com/carlos-duarte-44 and https://www.observatoriodetierras.org/podcast/, while written publications are available at https://www.observatoriodetierras.org/publicaciones/. This is a valuable opportunity to engage with current debates in more inclusive and accessible formats.

We particularly highlight the latest episode, which examines the current state of discussions on governance, access, and inequality in access to land at the global level, broken down by analytical regions. Available in English and Spanish.

La entrada From Colombia to the World: A Podcast Bringing Peasant Rights Research to Wider Audiences se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

In a regional scenario marked by a multidimensional crisis—characterized by the advance of agribusiness, the criminalization of popular struggles, and the weakening of collective rights—peasants continue to be one of the most vulnerable groups and, at the same time, one of the most strategic for food sovereignty, the defense of territories, and social justice. In this context, the effective implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) becomes an urgent and deeply political task.

With the aim of strengthening this process, CLOC–Via Campesina has promoted the creation of an Observatory for Peasants’ Rights, an initiative designed as a tool for coordination, monitoring, visibility, and support for rural struggles in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In this interview, Diego Monton, leader and representative of the National Indigenous Peasant Movement (MNCI)-Somos Tierra of Argentina and CLOC–Via Campesina, delves into the objectives, scope, and challenges of this new collective instrument, as well as its potential to support peasant struggles, influence public policy, and strengthen grassroots organization.

What are the main objectives of this new Observatory? How do you hope it will strengthen popular struggles in rural areas and influence public policy on peasant rights in Latin America and the Caribbean?

The Observatory is an initiative intended to serve primarily as a tool for CLOC and La Vía Campesina in Latin America, as well as for other allied organizations. In addition, we want it to be a resource for the UN Working Group of Experts on UNDROP itself, insofar as it makes available relevant information on developments taking place in each of the countries.

The central objective is therefore, on the one hand, to make visible situations in which the rights of peasants are being violated in the countries and in the region, while also emphasizing positive experiences at two levels. First, those related to legislation and public policies based on UNDROP that are progressively turning the rights set out in the Declaration into concrete state actions. Second, by highlighting initiatives led by rural organizations themselves—concrete actions that make it possible to guarantee the rights of peasants.

The Observatory also aims to offer a consultation tool for organizations: a space in which various studies and reports are made available from the perspective of the Declaration itself. We seek to produce information and provide analysis and knowledge that are quickly accessible and that can serve as a basis for the formulation of public policies and legislation. By building links among organizations, the CLOC collective on peasants’ rights, and the UN Group of Experts itself, the Observatory will help provide systematic follow-up on the process of promoting and implementing UNDROP.

In a context of systemic multidimensional crisis, marked by a frontal offensive by the dominant elites who are riding the wave of neo-fascism, the situation in rural areas is increasingly conflictive: how will the Observatory contribute to raising awareness and defending peasants’ rights in the face of predatory agribusiness practices (land grabbing, GMOs, or the criminalization of protests)?

The Observatory must be able to engage in dialogue with peasant struggles and help strengthen them. In fact, in these crisis contexts, the strategy of some states—or of agribusiness financial capital itself—is to stigmatize peasant life and work.

UNDROP makes it possible to legitimize the role of the peasantry, not only by enshrining their rights, but also by recognizing the role they play in promoting food sovereignty, combating climate change, and addressing the phenomenon of migration.

More rights of peasants also mean more rights for workers in all countries, and we aim to contribute—through communication and access to information—to strengthening organizations’ spaces for negotiation. We are convinced that the main tool available to the peasantry in Latin America is mobilization, struggle, and active organization. The Observatory seeks precisely to accompany these processes, while also supporting public institutions that have good intentions and that will be able to find, in addition to specific information, concrete experiences on which to create or develop new initiatives.

In addition, academic circles will be contributing to and drawing from the Observatory. And, as mentioned earlier, the UN Working Group of Experts on UNDROP itself has committed to contributing reports and articles to the Observatory, and to using its outputs to inform advocacy at the international level.

What structure, tools, and methodologies does the Observatory have for monitoring and documentation? And what types of data or indicators will be considered key for its evaluation?

Well, at this initial stage the structure is very simple, with a small staff in terms of the Observatory’s coordination and a few people dedicated to systematization. Work is being carried out in coordination with CLOC, drawing on different experiences of participatory research, and in collaboration with Alianza Biodiversidad, human rights organizations in the region, and other networks.

The aim is for this to be a cooperative, network-based effort that makes it possible to pool resources and to give visibility to many initiatives that are already being carried out and published in different spaces.

There are news agencies covering the situation in rural areas in different countries that are already doing this work, and our goal is to systematize and centralize— in a complementary way— all of this work that is being done in parallel.

We are also working to strengthen the Observatory’s financial capacity, in order to establish our own research group that will allow us to identify the main experiences on which we draw, deepen the level of research, and ultimately develop a solid manual of public policies associated with UNDROP. This should make it possible, whenever there are institutional advances, to quickly obtain ideas and action protocols to move forward with the institutional implementation of UNDROP, as well as to support parliamentary work in all those countries that still need to further develop and adapt their legislation accordingly.

How can rural organizations and their allies — such as the Defending Peasants’ Rights website — collaborate with this new observatory?

There is an email address, observatorioderechoscampesinos@gmail.com, through which it is possible to get in touch with the Observatory’s coordination team and submit reports, articles, and proposals.

In addition, in Latin America, within the peasants’ rights collective, a network has been gradually built so that country focal points are working to bring the Observatory online. In other words, CLOC’s own organizational structure also functions as a mechanism for this work.

We also hope to build a fruitful collaboration with the website Defending Peasant Rights, so that we can mutually reinforce one another and move forward toward the realization of the fundamental rights of rural peoples.

La entrada The Peasants’ Rights Observatory: a key tool for the implementation of UNDROP in Latin America se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

The Network of Rural Women of Ecuador has set out to analyze the realities affecting life in their territories in light of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). This declaration constitutes a substantive tool for rural women, as it guarantees fundamental rights that enable adequate conditions to sustain a dignified life in the territories where they care for and nurture life. Having this instrument is particularly essential in the current adverse context the country is facing.

The paid and unpaid work that rural women perform creates the necessary conditions for human life, nature, and organizational capacity to continue reproducing. Consequently, when they fully exercise the rights recognized in UNDROP and in the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (CRE), and have the dignity conditions required, that dignity is also extended to the spaces in which they operate daily. Rural women are pathbreakers; through their work “plowing the land,” in multiple ways, they make it possible for life to persist and continue flourishing in their environments, even amid structural and situational adversities. For this reason, it is imperative that they be recognized as subjects of special protection: rural women must be fully recognized as rights holders.

This report was prepared by the Network of Rural Women of Ecuador through a collective and participatory process, with the aim of making visible and denouncing the violations they face. It is an exercise in naming, denouncing, and amplifying commonly silenced violences, as well as creating spaces for strengthening, reflection, and organizational unity. Based on their voices, knowledge, and experiences, rural women prioritized the analysis of four rights enshrined in UNDROP that are severely affected and compromise their capacity for subsistence: 1) land and territory; 2) adequate food and nutrition; 3) non-discrimination; and 4) environment and water.

The document is structured in four sections: first, a brief contextual analysis; second, an argument regarding the binding nature of UNDROP within the framework of the CRE; third, an examination of the four prioritized rights, including a contextualization of their situation and an analysis of the applicable legal framework in UNDROP and the CRE; and finally, a set of recommendations directed to the Ecuadorian State.

Organizations from the Network of Rural Women of Ecuador participated in the preparation of this report, with the support of FIAN Ecuador in facilitating and systematizing the process.

Full report (Spanish only):

La entrada Rural Women as Rights Holders: UNDROP from the Perspective of Those Who Safeguard Life se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

On June 5, 2025, the National Human Rights Council (CNDH), after being prompted by Brazilian peasant organizations from La Via Campesina, published the Recommendation No. 5/2025, which “Recommends the adoption of the necessary measures for the observance, publicization, and compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants by the Brazilian State.” This document constitutes an extremely important normative and political milestone for the realization of peasant rights in Brazil, insofar as it explicitly recognizes the centrality of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) as an indispensable parameter for the Brazilian State’s actions. This normative advance also constitutes a good practice in the promotion and implementation of UNDROP at the national level, which can—and should—inspire peasant organizations and public authorities in other countries.

To understand the relevance of this Recommendation, it is important to recall the context in which the Declaration was approved in 2018, when Brazil was under a far-right government and, due to its foreign and domestic policy, abstained from voting in favor of the text. The consequences of this stance resulted in the Declaration not being incorporated into Brazil’s domestic policies, hindering its implementation.

In this regard, the CNDH, as an autonomous institution with a legal duty to promote and defend human rights in Brazil, and through its permanent commission on “the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas, Traditional Peoples and Communities, Populations Affected by Large-Scale Enterprises, and Rural Workers Involved in Land Conflicts,” recommended a series of measures to be taken by the Brazilian state, in its three branches of government, to fill this gap and implement policies to protect the rights of peasant communities and other rural workers, in accordance with the Declaration. Among these measures, it was recommended that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil convey to the United Nations Secretary-General Brazil’s support for UNDROP.

In issuing the recommendation, the CNDH anchored itself in the context of human rights policy in Brazil and in the consistent complaints received, which reveal a longstanding pattern of invisibilization and vulnerability of rural populations. In fact, the aforementioned Commission receives nearly half of all human rights violation complaints submitted to the entire Council, underscoring the importance of the Brazilian State adopting effective measures to promote and implement UNDROP and the human rights of rural peoples.

By affirming the need for observance, dissemination, and implementation of UNDROP, the CNDH seeks to contribute to bridging the gap between the international commitments assumed by Brazil in the field of human rights and their effective domestic implementation. This instrument underscores that peasants’ rights are not limited to sectoral or welfare policies but are an integral part of fundamental human rights, encompassing civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights.

Moreover, the Recommendation explicitly highlights the structural link between the denial of rights in rural areas and the persistence of violence in the countryside, land conflicts, slave labor, and the criminalization of human rights defenders. By acknowledging Brazil’s repeated convictions by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases involving rural violence, the document reinforces the State’s duty to prevent such violations, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide full reparations to victims and their families, including in situations where abuses are committed by private actors with the acquiescence or omission of public authorities.

Another central aspect is the recognition of the role of peasants in ensuring food sovereignty and security, preserving biodiversity, and addressing the climate crisis. The Recommendation recognizes that agroecological practices and the traditional knowledge of rural peoples are fundamental to the construction of socially and environmentally sustainable development models, breaking with the logic of intensive exploitation of land and natural resources that has historically produced inequalities and rights violations.

The CNDH Recommendation also has institutional relevance in proposing concrete measures for the implementation of UNDROP, such as the creation of an inter-institutional Working Group, coordination between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and the active participation of organized civil society. These guidelines reinforce the notion that the realization of peasant rights requires state policies, with mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, and social participation, rather than isolated or discontinuous actions.

Finally, by providing guidance to justice system bodies, such as the National Council of Justice, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and Public Defender’s Offices, the Recommendation strengthens the incorporation of the human rights perspective of peasant men and women into judicial and administrative decisions, contributing to greater access to justice and the eradication of impunity for crimes committed in rural areas. In this regard, the document reaffirms that Brazilian democracy and social justice necessarily depend on recognizing the dignity, autonomy, and territorial rights of rural populations. It is also important to note that the CNDH has been receiving responses from institutions reporting the incorporation of the Declaration into their legal and guiding frameworks. Notable examples include publications by the Court of Justice of Sergipe, the Court of Justice of Paraná, the Federal Court of Bahia, and the Regional Federal Court of the 5th Region.

Recommendation No. 05/2025 of the CNDH represents a strategic instrument for the realization of the rights of rural peoples in Brazil, by aligning the legal system and national public policies with the highest international human rights standards, promoting social justice, combating violence in rural areas, and strengthening democracy, with the direct participation of rural social movements.

La entrada Brazil: National Council for Human Rights adopts key regulation to advance the implementation of UNDROP se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

This article provides a summary of an academic paper written by Romberg de Sá Gondim (avaliable here)

Introduction

As digital tools tend to incorporate a top-down and corporate driven approach, these technologies have been easily assimilated by large-scale farms and in particular with the Green Revolution (Shelton et al., 2022). On another hand, peasants and small-scale farmers face unequal access, ability of accessing, finding, and benefiting from such technologies (McCampbell et al., 2025). The complexity and technocratic approach of technologies also risks minimizing peasant participation, agency and co-creation of knowledge by replicating (Hilbeck and Tiselli, 2020), and even replacing previous horizontal and inclusive social interactions between small-scale farmers, peasants, and rural communities, threatening a cornerstone element of agroecology (Shelton et al., 2022). While peasant literacy, participation and access to technology are not new dilemmas on agroecological studies, the rise of the digital revolution comes with new nuances. More specifically, on how how emerging digital technologies are or aren’t considering agroecological principles (Ajena et al, 2020). This dynamic raises fundamental questions about peasants rights, and in particular the right to develop agroecological practices, which are enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP).

The impact of digitalization on peasants’ rights

The effects of digitalization on the co-creation of knowledge and peasant agency within agroecology remain insufficiently understood – not only in the academic literature but also among peasant communities and agroecological activists themselves (Silva, 2022). Tensions emerge between agri-tech and agroecological approaches, as the former often replicate the discourse and practices of the Green Revolution, seeing in contradiction with agroecological approaches and peasants’ rights. Digital tools have been linked to the devaluation of traditional knowledge systems, the standardization of practices through datafication (Ajena et al., 2022; Shelton et al., 2022), and the emergence of predatory intellectual property dynamics, such as the digital sequencing of germplasm (Vogliano et al., 2021). These practices are not only at odds with agroecological values but also contravene key provisions of the UNDROP – notably Article 19 on the right to seeds, Article 20 on biodiversity, and Article 26 on traditional knowledge. Yet, other scholars argue that agroecology and digital technologies are not inherently incompatible, and that these technologies may foster agroecology scalability (Rotz et al., 2019), which can also create problems of inequality, as differentiated  access to these tools can exacerbate inequalities among peasants, generating asymmetrical productivity gains that benefit adopters while excluding non-adopters (Brunori, 2024).

Considering the complex dynamic between digitalization, agroecology, and peasant agency and participation, this research paper explored these themes through the following central question: To what extent do digital tools enable or constrain meaningful participation in agroecological transitions at the territorial level? To answer this, a set of three sub-questions were posed: (i) What tensions and opportunities emerge in the digitalization of agriculture to small-scale farmers? (ii) How do digital tools align or conflict with agroecological principles such as co-creation of knowledge and resilient governance?; and (iii) Who are the actors involved in the design and governance of agroecological digital tools, and how do their participatory approaches affect peasants’ agency and inclusion?

To answer these questions, the paper was also structured in three parts. First, a literature review addresses the subquestions using academic articles, policy briefs, and program reports on the digitalization of agroecology. This includes a descriptive analysis of a dataset on how digital tools incorporate agroecological and social inclusion elements (from Dittmer et al., 2022a). Second, two case-based sections explored: (i) digital tools as a way for co-creation and knowledge sharing, focusing on the Solis app developed in Pará, Brazil under the Inclusive Digital Tools (ADTD) component of the Agroecological Transitions Program for Building Resilient and Inclusive Agricultural & Food Systems (TRANSITIONS), financed by the European Union (EU). And, (ii) governance perspectives drawing on semi-structured interviews conducted by the author with agroecological activists from La Via Campesina in Brazil and Paraguay, alongside insights from the TRANSITIONS interviews with policy and technical actors and small-scale farmers prior to Solis implementation (Freixêdas et al., 2022). Finally, the conclusion reflects on the findings and limitations of existing literature and how the case studies respond to the research questions.

In this summary, the main findings from the case studies and the key conclusions of the paper are outlined below. For further details, including additional references to interviews conducted with La Via Campesina leaders in South America, Perla Alvarez (CONAMURI, Paraguay) and Marciano Toledo (MPA, Brazil), please refer to the full article [insert link again].

Case Studies

Firstly, a section on the co-design and implementation of  Solis, an app designed for increasing peasants’ digital agency in small livestock farming initially in Novo Repartimento, Anapú and Pacajá cities (Pará State, North of Brazil). This section highlighted how small-scale farmers were included, and the challenges during and after the process, through documentation analysis of reports and presentations about the programme. A second session addressed governance issues faced in including peasants and agroecological elements in the digitalization of agriculture in Brazil. For this, documental analysis of publications and interviews conducted by the Transitions Programme in Brazil with agents in ministries, governmental agencies, state governments, cooperatives, developers, private sector, and NGOs (Freixêdas et al., 2022) will be complemented by interviews conducted by the author with peasants and social activists within La Via Camponesa International in Brazil and Paraguay (while also a representative for the Latin American Coordination of Rural Organizations – CLOC).

The Solis app, a project developed in the Pará region of Brazil, serves as a powerful example of how digital tools can be designed to align with agroecological principles. A civil society organization, Solidaridad Latinoamerica, partnered with peasants who had little access to technical assistance but were already familiar with smartphones and social media like WhatsApp. Instead of presenting a finished product, the project used participatory methods like co-creation workshops and field days to involve peasants in the design process from the start. This approach was crucial for adapting the app to local needs. For instance, peasant input transformed the app’s initial concept, leading to the creation of a digital learning community where users could share videos and content about local agroecological practices. This peasant-to-peasant knowledge exchange, a core tenet of agroecology, became a central feature. This co-design process aligns with the UNDROP’s articles 10 and 18,   which establish the rights of peasants to meaningful participation in decision-making and control over their resources.

The app demonstrates that inclusive digital tools can empower peasants and help them transition away to more agroecological models. However, it also highlights significant challenges. The extensive participatory design process delayed the app’s launch for a year, and the need to keep the tool free for peasants places a financial burden on its developers. This raises further questions: how can these valuable, peasant-centric initiatives be sustained and scaled without compromising their core principles?

Also, while local initiatives like Solis show great promise, the broader landscape of digital governance in Brazil and in Latin America in general is far more challenging. Interviews with government and industry representatives conducted by the Solis team revealed that many existing digital tools are designed with a “one size fits all” approach that does not account for the diverse needs of peasants and small-scale farmers. Although some officials acknowledged the need for peasant input, their definitions of “participation” often stopped at simply consulting peasants or communicating them about existing policies. The idea of peasants as co-developers or participants in administrative governance was rarely mentioned.

This disconnect is a major concern for agroecological movements like La Via Campesina. The interviews conducted by the author with activists from Brazil and Paraguay revealed some skepticism towards digital agriculture. This does not come as a rejection of technology itself, but of the corporate, top-down approach of many digital tools that lead to the same problems as the Green Revolution. Interestingly, the interviews showed a relationship between data ownership and previous forms of resource privatization, such as corporate appropriation and patenting of local crop varieties. Now, it comes to the preoccupation of “what will they do with my data?” and “how is it being used?”, which  reinforces UNDROPs importance in emphasizing the rights of peasants in controlling their own resources and traditional knowledge. Furthermore, other challenges in the latin american environment, such as the lack of secure access to land, a fragmented and opaque public policy landscape, and current fights on seeds rights are priority to social movements, which dislocate their attention to the current debates on digitalization.

Ultimately, the research shows a clear gap between the potential of digital tools to foster agroecology and the reality of how they are currently designed and governed. While grassroots efforts like Solis are creating inclusive alternatives, they operate in parallel to a broader policy environment that largely excludes peasant movements and fails to address the fundamental issues of power, participation, and data sovereignty.

Conclusion

The paper aimed to understand the extent to which digital technologies enable or constrain meaningful participation in agroecological transitions at the territorial level. The findings reaffirm many critical concerns raised in the academic literature. While it mentions the possibility of co-creation of digital tools for agroecological purposes, most of the current tools mapped are far away from incorporating agroecological principles and social inclusion in their design (Dittmer et al., 2022a). Thus, the dominant top-down, corporate-driven approach may continue to frame most digital agricultural tools, embedding them within narratives of standardization and productivity associated with the Green Revolution (Klerkx & Rose, 2020; Shelton et al., 2022). These models tend to marginalize smallholders, exclude traditional knowledge, and risk deepening inequalities. While power relations are underlined in the literature, little is mentioned on the peasants movement agency in digitalization of agriculture outside – valid – concerns with peasant data ownership and the corporate vision behind such tools. Their engagement on co-creating horizontal digital tools is yet not clear.

Future research should expand both in depth and breadth, in themes such as financing for digital tools in agroecology, so as to understand their operational model – and how peasant knowledge is incorporated –, return on investment, and in identifying how different financial mechanisms that may be related to more agroecological elements and social inclusion realization, that is, more participation. Also, incoming research should focus on the role of peasant movements in co-creating, implementing, or even resisting digital technologies, and in understanding how these actors influence the governance – locally or nationally, institutionalized or not – and values embedded in digital technologies is critical for a more democratic digital transition. Considering the time of writing, the article did not incorporate recent efforts, such as the “Inteligência Artificial da Reforma Agrária e Agroecologia” (IARAA, AI of Agrarian Reformation and Agroecology) project, coordinated by the Landless Rural Workers Movement and the World March of Women.

Ultimately, if agroecology is to serve as an alternative to industrial and productivist agriculture, its engagement with digital tools shall not replicate the very structures it seeks to replace. Instead, it must be reimagined from the ground up – rooted in peasant agency, collective knowledge, and equitable governance (Laurens et al., 2023; McCampbell et al., 2025; Sheldon et al., 2022), thereby fulfilling rights recognized in the UNDROP. This includes, but moves beyond inclusive design, towards also understanding governance and power dynamics (Rosset et al., 2025; Rotz et al., 2019). As digital technologies are rapidly embedded in food and agriculture systems, this paper highlighted how the challenge is not merely technological, but fundamentally about power, participation, and the future of agroecology, its practices, principles, and actors.

To consult the bibliographic references cited in this article, please refer to the full paper provided below.

On this topic, read also:

1.) https://www.eurovia.org/publications/ecvc-position-on-digitalisation/

2.) https://defendingpeasantsrights.org/los-desafios-de-los-movimientos-campesinos-frente-a-la-digitalizacion-de-la-agricultura/ (Spanish or French only)

La entrada Bridging or Excluding? Peasant Participation in the Digitalization of Agroecology se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

Editor’s note:

The experts’ visit, initially planned for November 4–14, 2025, was postponed despite its critical timing, following recent protests in Ecuador that were met with a state of emergency and a crackdown in which Indigenous, rural and environmental organisations—amongst key representatives of UNDROP rights-holders— were accused of “terrorism” and had their bank accounts frozen. These demonstrations raised urgent alarms about pressing issues directly linked to the UNDROP, such as rights to land, water, and a healthy environment, which were threatened by the termination of fuel subsidies and the advancement of mining projects on Indigenous lands.

In this context, the experts explained that a visit would have provided a vital opportunity to work with the Government to find human rights–based responses to these concerns.

They emphasised that Ecuador has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). The experts further highlighted that this declaration offers a clear framework for tackling deep-rooted inequalities faced by rural communities and can help shape public policies that promote food sovereignty, environmental preservation, and social justice.

Read full statement:

05 November 2025

GENEVA – A group of human rights experts* today announced that their visit to Ecuador, due to take place from 4 to 14 November 2025, has been cancelled after the Government requested to reschedule it for the second half of 2026.

“The recent protests across the country reflect deep-rooted concerns about land and water rights, environmental degradation, and relate to increased cost of living and growing insecurity and violence,” said the UN Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas.

“A country visit at this moment would have allowed us to work collaboratively with the Government to identify human rights solutions to these pressing issues.”

The experts noted that the visit would have been a timely and valuable opportunity for constructive engagement with the Government and communities on advancing the rights of peasants and rural workers in Ecuador.

“The country visit would have provided an important platform to identify human rights-based approaches to the pressing challenges currently faced by peasant and Indigenous communities in Ecuador,” the Working Group said. “In light of the recent protests and the government’s response to them, this dialogue would have been particularly relevant to discuss ways to address underlying grievances and strengthen trust between communities and institutions.”

The experts reiterated that Ecuador’s progressive recognition of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) offers a concrete and principled roadmap for addressing the structural inequalities and injustices affecting peasant communities, Indigenous Peoples, small scale fishers and rural workers.

“We remain convinced that implementing UNDROP can help guide policies to ensure food sovereignty, environmental protection, and social justice,” the Working Group said, expressing readiness to support and cooperate with Ecuadorian authorities in the promotion of the rights of peasants and rural workers in the country.

The Working Group on Peasants and other people working in rural areas is comprised of five independent experts from all regions of the world. The Chair-Rapporteur is Carlos Duarte (Colombia), other members are Geneviève Savigny (France); Shalmali Guttal (India), Uche Ewelukwa Ofodile (Nigeria) and Davit Hakobyan (Armenia).

Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.

Country-specific observations and recommendations by the UN human rights mechanisms, including the special procedures, the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review, can be found on the Universal Human Rights Index https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/.

UN Human Rights, country page – https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/ecuador

For inquiries and media requests, please contact: Jamshid GAZIYEV, Secretary of the Working Group on peasants and rural workers (jamshid.gaziyev@un.org).

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts please contact Maya Derouaz (maya.derouaz@un.org) or Dharisha Indraguptha (dharisha.indraguptha@un.org).

Follow news related to the UN’s independent human rights experts on X: @UN_SPExperts.

La entrada Ecuador postpones visit by UN Working Group on peasants’ rights se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

Among other things, the event aimed to highlight the multiple challenges currently facing rural communities around the world. It also sought to explore how the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) could influence legal and policy frameworks to better protect these communities, strengthen their rights and promote social justice. Finally, the event highlighted the mobilisation of peasant movements and rural organisations across Latin America, which are working at all levels to promote and implement the UNDROP.

As moderator, Sibylle Dirren, FIAN International’s representative to the UN, emphasised the crucial role of UNDROP as a powerful tool for defending and promoting the rights of rural communities.

Carlos Duarte, Chair of the UN Working Group of Experts on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, recalled the critical situation of rural communities, which face dispossession, lack of access to land and water, and the grabbing of natural resources. He lamented the difficulties faced by rural organisations in making their voices heard in international forums, such as the COP or the Global Biodiversity Convention, even though peasant and other rural communities are directly concerned by biodiversity protection and climate issues. Mr. Duarte also pointed to the persecution and repression suffered by peasant leaders in many parts of the world. Finally, he stressed the need to strengthen the participation of rural women, who are often invisible despite being “the backbone of the peasant-rural world”.

Alfonzo Simon Raylan, representative of the Sea Workers’ Union (SITRAMAR), a member organisation of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples, sounded the alarm on the situation of fishers in the indigenous region of Ngöbe-Buglé (Panama). Since 2010, under the pretext of environmental conservation, a fishing ban has deprived these communities of their main source of livelihood, exacerbating poverty and hunger. The populations live in difficult conditions, with limited access to education, healthcare and basic services. Mr. Raylan denounced the lack of state support and the violent repression suffered by indigenous peoples when they defend their rights.

Three representatives of La Via Campesina from Latin America shared their experiences via video message. Martha Huertas Moya, a member of FENACOA/La Via Campesina Colombia, gave an encouraging assessment of the situation of Colombia’s long-marginalised peasantry. The recognition of peasants’ rights in the country’s constitution and public policies has led to better land distribution and the guarantee of rights that were previously inaccessible. However, she stressed the need to create an agrarian and rural jurisdiction and to increase the budgets allocated to rural areas in order to consolidate these advances. Arturo Aliaga, member of ANAP/La Via Campesina Cuba, highlighted concrete advances in peasants’ rights, food sovereignty and agroecology in the country. The peasant representative stated that, thanks to the strong political will of the competent authorities and ANAP’s ability to participate directly in the development of public policies and the establishment of relevant legislative frameworks, the promotion and implementation of UNDROP is now a reality. Anderson Amaro, representative of MPA/La Via Campesina Brazil, presented how Brazilian rural social movements are mobilising the UNDROP in their struggle for decent living and working conditions. More specifically, the peasant leader discussed the ongoing advocacy strategy, which aims to integrate the Declaration into the work of actors in the national judicial system, relevant ministries, and the national and departmental parliamentary agenda.

Adriana Fillol Mazo, Professor at the University of Seville and the Geneva Academy, presented UNDROP as a concrete legal tool for protecting rural communities. However, she noted the existence of several threats, such as digitalisation and agricultural technologies that can increase dependence and exclusion. The lack of generational renewal also jeopardises the future of small-scale farming. Rural women also face significant obstacles in accessing land and a dignified life. Added to this are economic pressure, violence and climate uncertainty, which are causing a silent mental health crisis in rural areas. She concluded by calling for peasants, fishers and indigenous peoples to be seen not as problems to be managed, but as essential strategic partners in building fair, resilient and sustainable food systems.

Raffaele Morgantini, CETIM representative to the UN, closed the event on a hopeful note for rural communities, thanks to the emergence of progressive case law. Indeed, decisions favourable to rural peoples’ rights are appearing in several judicial systems. In Honduras, the Supreme Court invoked UNDROP to protect peasant seeds from the “Monsanto law”, a law passed by Parliament that favoured industrial seeds and was subsequently repealed. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court granted protection to a peasant couple forced to abandon their land after repeated flooding. In February 2020, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a ruling ordering the reinstatement of an indigenous population on their ancestral land, using both UNDROP and UNDRIP (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Other examples exist in Kenya and Canada, covering rights related to seeds and health. Mr. Morgantini stressed that these advances would not have been possible without strong alliances between peasant and rural movements, human rights defenders, lawyers, academics and the commitment of public authorities. These collaborations make it possible to transform principles into concrete actions in rural communities, courts and national policies.

Read our exclusive interview with Working Group Chair Carlos Duarte and our article on the Working Group’s report presented at the 60^th session of the Human Rights Council.

La entrada Side event at the UN: Challenges and best practices in promoting the rights of peasants and rural workers in Latin America se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

It is in this dynamic that the Tierra Viva project was born, offering a training programme grounded in a popular, feminist, intercultural and decolonial pedagogy. Since 2022, Tierra Viva has been weaving a network for disseminating UNDROP through workshops and webinaires, working in conjunction with peasant, indigenous and human‑rights organisations, mainly in Latin America (but also in Madagascar, 2022). The approach is resolutely collective: it is about equipping struggles with legal and political knowledge, nourishing local resistance, strengthening participants’ capacities to analyse their context (from local to global), and, finally, creating bridges between diverse experiences, and favouring the transmission of rights as tools of transformation.

Training in the service of resisting territories

It all began in Mexico, in the state of Guerrero, with the organisation of five workshops in rural communities engaged in defending native maize, coffee production, as well as food sovereignty and agroecology. These communities were identified in collaboration with the FIAN Mexico section. Very quickly, the logistical difficulty of moving around in these isolated territories, combined with the precariousness of available resources, led to the development of online training as a complement. More accessible and less costly, it also allows for wider regional circulation. The virtual meetings of participants from different regions also allow for richer exchanges, promote intercultural dialogue and the opening of perspectives, and foster the weaving of connections. These webinaires or workshops therefore constitute one of the rare opportunities for training in communities, especially for women, who still too often do not have access to such spaces.

The chosen format — interactive thematic webinars, often followed by debates and exchanges about local struggles — has met with considerable success. These trainings aim not only to publicise the UNDROP, but also to link it to specific contexts, in order to encourage appropriation and action, in service of struggles on the ground.

The trainings have been extended to other regions: Yucatán, Campeche, Quintana Roo, then Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. The majority of participants are rural women, often already active in agroecology processes or in defending territories or native seeds. However, the audience has become increasingly diverse with the participation of men, students, and Latin American agroecologists in the webinars.

Each cycle consists of approximately ten modules, each addressing one of the key rights recognised under UNDROP, including the rights to land, water, peasant seeds, biodiversity, information, freedom of association and expression, and participation. In this regard the references to conventions such as CEDAW, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Escazú Treaty, UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169 provide a broader spectrum of existing rights, all complementary and interdependent, equipping participants even further in their resistance and situating UNDROP within a broader human rights framework, aimed at a bottom‑up empowerment process. We also address cultural rights and traditional knowledge, which in 2025 has led to deepening knowledge about Andean, Maya and Amazonian ways of life and cosmovisions, thanks to the intervention of indigenous guides and leaders. These spaces for exchange aim in fact to give voice to actors in the struggles, to translate UNDROP into their daily reality, to highlight their challenges and to value their culture, their approach and their resilience.

Rights as a common language of struggles

Everywhere, the reactions are strong. Participants discover the existence of UNDROP, often for the first time. Many express a feeling of recognition and legitimisation, upon learning that there is an international legal instrument that names, values and protects their practices and identities.

The exchanges also allow difficult realities to be verbalised: youth rural exodus and migration, the loss of ancestral knowledge, dispossession, the collapse of ecosystems, gender‑based violence, repression of community leaders, corruption and the hold of drug trafficking over territories.

The Tierra Viva project insists that these rights are not reserved for peasants and people in rural zones, but concern all of society. The transformation of the food system, the mode of production and consumption, deforestation, soil regeneration, the survival of cultural heritages, the regulation of multinationals, climate justice, the conservation of the planet: these are several challenges. We all have a share of responsibility and a role to play.

What is coming: to transmit, relay, multiply

The prospects are numerous: to further broaden the trainings, to translate the materials into other local languages, to strengthen partnerships, to value feedback from experience.

One of the goals is also to have these trainings recognised, especially by local organisations, universities, peasant networks, so as to then establish collaborations. Some progress was made in this direction in 2025 since several of Tierra Viva’s partners issued certificates for participants, associating their logo with Tierra Viva. Giving visibility to the work accomplished would help to reinforce rootedness, reach new audiences, establish collaborations with more partners, networks and associations in different countries, while stimulating the participants’ motivation, and possibly obtaining more logistical support. And the site Defending Peasant Rights has a role to play in this circulation.

Tierra Viva Networks

Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/@TierraVivaMPS/videos

Email : tierraviva.mundo@gmail.com

Contact: +32485169934 (whatsapp)

La entrada Tierra Viva: UNDROP Training, Connection and Resistance in Peasant Territories of Latin America se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

This article draws on the example of Brazil to illustrate the synergies and complementarities between agroecology and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP).

What do we actually mean by agroecology? In summary, one could say that agroecology is a life project: living in greater harmony with nature. However, this concept has also undergone many reinterpretations. Agroecology seems to have become fashionable worldwide, especially after Brazilian José Graziano da Silva, as Director-General of the FAO, opened ‘a window in the cathedral of the Green Revolution’ through it. What is the problem with a term being fashionable? That people try to use it for almost anything. If, for example, we start from a concept of agroecology that is reduced to science, then there is a danger of neglecting it as an agricultural practice and a social movement! We could then imagine it as something that arises more from academic activity. It thus becomes reduced to an agricultural science subject, and could also be called something else. 

For us, however, agroecology is first and foremost a farming practice. And if agroecology can be a path to food sovereignty, then we must clearly ask whether this is with or without peasants. After all, agroecology emerged in Latin America as a peasant response to the negative effects of the so-called Green Revolution. Peasants should therefore have a central role in agroecology.

The UNDROP clearly affirms the obligation of States to promote agroecological production (Article 16.4), to adopt appropriate measures for the conservation and sustainable use of land and natural resources through agroecology (Article 17.7), and to protect and promote the traditional knowledge of rural communities, particularly agroecological practices essential for conserving and sustainably using biodiversity (Article 20.2). It also upholds the right of peasants and other rural peoples to receive adequate training tailored to their specific agroecological, sociocultural, and economic contexts (Article 25.1). 

Food sovereignty – enshrined as a rural peoples’ right in Article 15.4 of UNDROP – is about food production. And agroecology is about peasants. In other words, it is about agriculture. However, agriculture should not be reduced to economics. Agriculture is also culture, i.e. agri-culture. And culture is knowledge. It is nourishment. It is history. And it is life! And this is where the problem of agricultural science comes into play. Because peasants and indigenous peoples still see the world as a whole. When a peasant grows all kinds of plants, it is also because he/she can feed himself or herself from them! It is important to realize that peasants have existed for 10,000 years and that many of them have managed to be self-sufficient!

So, if everything else goes wrong, peasants still have their own food! It is the only profession that can claim this. Or will a shoemaker eat shoes, for example? Or will a tailor eat clothes? No. Only peasants have this autonomy. But what does that mean? It should mean deciding what is produced, who produces it, who it is produced for, how it is produced (some people think that agroecology is only about the ‘how’) and why something is produced.

If we hold the answers to these five questions (i.e., what, who, for whom, how and why), then we have food sovereignty. It is local power. It is self-determination. Can agroecology help to strengthen the right of peasants and food sovereignty? Yes, it can!

I will present ten reasons why peasants and small-scale food producers should practice agroecology in Brazil and in other countries, and make links with the rights outlined in the UNDROP.

1. Agroecology reduces production costs in agriculture. We have already seen operating costs reduced by up to 40 percent in organic farming. This directly contributes to an increase in the final income of peasants, in line with their right to a decent income recognized in UNDROP’s Article 16.

2. Agroecology increases conservation of natural resources. In 1713, Hans Carl von Carlowitz wrote a book entitled ‘Sylvicultura Oeconomica’. Carlowitz believed that sustainability meant not taking more wood from a forest than it could grow back. This idea that foresters should not take more from a forest than it can regrow is the same as that of fishermen who know that they should not catch more fish than nature can replenish. This corresponds to the sustainability philosophy of most indigenous peoples!

Why is this example relevant to agroecology? Because the idea of agroforestry allows us to go beyond agroecology. I think the model that comes closest to nature is the forest. But please, not monocultures of pine or eucalyptus! Forests are diverse. And industrial agriculture cannot use natural resources sustainably. According to this model, everything should be produced as quickly and as much as possible. Nature is thus overburdened and destroyed. And what follows? Investments simply shift elsewhere. Preserving natural resources means considering water, soil and the life in the soil as essential for agriculture, which are also peasants’ rights as outlined in UNDROP’s Articles 17 (right to land), 18 (right to environment) and 21 (right to water). Every farming family wants their son, grandson and great-grandson to continue farming. So, they will not necessarily think that they are planting a tree to use it right away. In 100 years, it may be their grandchild who uses it. That is the idea behind preserving natural resources. An agriculture that is suitable for grandchildren!

3. Agroecology is able to better reward the work of people in rural areas. But how can this be achieved? First of all, the use of labour-saving agricultural technology increases the amount of non-working time, because the dependence on nature means that production time in agriculture is separate from the necessary working time. If less work is required for production but the waiting time until harvest remains the same, this creates either free time or more time for other activities. And how will farming families use this time? At the very least, production will have to be diversified. With agroecology, it is impossible to practice monoculture. The success of agroecology is therefore closely linked to the concept of multifunctionality in agriculture, which means that more can be paid for labour. Better remuneration for labour means that peasants ultimately receive more for their work. Normally they don’t even factor these costs in. But isn’t it precisely labour that creates the value of goods? And if you preserve nature, shouldn’t you be paid more for it? Yes! There are already places in the world where peasants are rewarded for this. They are remunerated by society because, for example, nature-friendly agriculture means lower costs for public health. Every community can do this. If we use fewer pesticides, if we avoid GMOs, we will have fewer health problems and lower public spending. So, yes: it is possible to better remunerate those who work with agroecology, in accordance with UNDROP’s Article 16, which protects peasants’ right to decent income and an adequate standard of living. But that requires more knowledge, and that is another challenge. The time freed up by agroecology can also be devoted to developing knowledge.

4. Agroecology is a way to optimise agricultural ecosystems. It is possible to reduce external inputs in agriculture through agroecology. With agroecology, production is increasingly local and in closed cycles with less energy waste, reducing reliance on long transport routes. This reduces the negative impact on the environment, in line with UNDROP’s Article 18. With agroecology, it is possible to reduce erosion, soil leaching and desertification.

5. Agroecology allows for increased production, which is important to realise UNDROP’s Articles 16 and 15. For example, through mixed cropping, which thrives particularly well in tropical climates. In Brazil, for example, growing corn and beans in the same field ultimately yields more than just corn. Mixed cropping produces higher yields on the same amount of land. Ecological intensification is a solution, especially in countries with limited arable land. This solution is already practiced in many places, as recognized by the FAO. That gives us an advantage. But we should be a little careful, because productivity can decline in the first few years. The balance must first be restored. It is necessary to build up humus in the soil and prioritise plants with diverse roots that allow water, air and organic matter to circulate. Then the soil will regenerate. In these first few years, governments should help peasants. Because in the short term, agroecology may lead to low productivity. But in the medium and long terms, it can actually produce more than the industrial model. There are plenty of reports from peasants in Brazil who have already proven this.

6. Young people and women are protagonists in the agroecological process. And that is very important when it comes to the rights of people in rural areas and their future. So, when we talk about peasants, we must also talk about young peasants – and especially female young peasants, in accordance with UNDROP’s Article 4 on the rights of rural women. 

7. There is another aspect of small-scale farming that is consistent with the concept of agroecology: it is the special relationship that farming families have with knowledge. Farming families exchange their discoveries, they share their knowledge, they pass it on. Instead of keeping it to themselves, peasants spread their knowledge within a community, and by doing so they realize UNDROP’s Article 26 on the right to culture and traditional knowledge. 

8. There are various ways to make the transition to agroecology, and States should take appropriate measures to ensure that their programmes and policies contribute effectively to the transition to sustainable agricultural models, as stipulated in UNDROP’s Article 16.4. Agroecology can serve as an umbrella under which various forms of agriculture are promoted – many of which we do not yet know because we have not yet made contact with many indigenous peoples who practice agriculture. This type of agriculture can be pointed out as part of what we usually call ‘agroecological’. It is a type that could be described as traditional, but it is not only that. It is also innovative. And it will help us to achieve these 10 goals that we present here, and to realize food sovereignty.

9. One important innovation we need to implement is ensuring market access (enshrined in UNDROP’s Articles 2.6e, 16.3) – along with market education (Article 25) and information (Article 11). In the past, peasants were unable to achieve this innovation on their own. But we have good examples of this in Brazil with government programmes. For example, with the school meals programme and public procurement, through which food is bought directly from local and regional peasant organizations. These initiatives led Brazil to be removed from the UN’s hunger map in 2014. However, after six years of conservative-led governments that dismantled these policies, hunger returned in alarming numbers by 2022, with over 15% of the population suffering from acute hunger – most of them in rural areas! More recently, thanks to renewed efforts by the current government, Brazil was once again removed from the hunger map in 2025.

These institutional markets support the agroecological transition. The organization between peasants and consumers also enables organic food to reach people’s tables, which is an element of food sovereignty. So, it is not just about food security, because food security can mean that someone else feeds you. Of course, if someone is starving, they should be provided with food. But that is an emergency. No one should be made dependent on it. It would be even worse to make farming families dependent on it. If we can produce, process and market food as close as possible to where it is produced, farming families will also be better nourished. And that already increases food sovereignty. When they produce for the region, it also increases the availability of local food. That is what agroecology can achieve. Food security means the availability of food in terms of quantity, quality and regularity throughout the year. But that’s not all! We must also know who will produce this food? Which types of food will be produced? With which technology? With the use of pesticides and genetic engineering, or not? Agriculture without people is not agroecology either. Agroecology is agriculture with people and for people in harmony with nature.

10. But to do this, we must use the latest scientific findings. But be careful: there are interests behind modern science. It is not value-neutral! When it comes to science that serves agroecology, we must remember that without the modern science we have had so far, the industrialisation of agriculture would not have been possible. So, it is not innocent. The science that is to serve agroecology must be different. It must be context-dependent and transdisciplinary, bringing together traditional and scientific knowledge.

This science must not be oppressive or prejudiced, and above all, it must not displace people from their land and home. We must avoid this, as well as pandemics, famines, climate crises – all of that. The real answer to this is connected to our food, the right food and food sovereignty.

Agroecology is about real food produced by peasants, organic agriculture and traditional peoples. UNDROP reinforces the multiple principles of agroecology and food sovereignty. It confirms the primacy of the rights of peasants and other rural communities, and reminds States of their obligation to respect, protect and fulfil these rights. Why is it important? Because we want humanity to continue to exist after us.

La entrada Synergies and Complementarity between Agroecology and the UNDROP: The Example of Brazil se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

La Via Campesina Brazil has submitted a written contribution in response to the call from the UN Working Group on peasants’ rights, outlining the main challenges faced by the Brazilian peasantry. Drafted collectively following a training session on the UNDROP for Brazilian organisations of La Via Campesina (LVC), the text also presents a collective vision on the current state of peasants’ right to participation in Brazil.

La Via Campesina Brazil has submitted a written contribution in response to the call from the UN Working Group on the UNDROP, outlining the main challenges faced by the Brazilian peasantry. Drafted collectively following a training session on the UNDROP for Brazilian organisations of La Via Campesina (LVC), the text also presents a collective vision on the current state of peasants’ right to participation in Brazil.

During the months of January and March 2025, a training session on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) was held for member organisations of La Via Campesina Brazil, with support from the human rights organisation Terra de Direitos and CETIM. This was the first training focused on the UNDROP for social movements and grassroots rural organisations in Brazil, serving as a practical example of the implementation of La Via Campesina International’s strategy of conducting training on the Declaration for its bases in various countries.

The aim of the training was not only to make the UNDROP known among its rights-holders, but also to facilitate and encourage a popular appropriation of this Declaration by peasants and other rural peoples in their political and legal struggles at local, national, regional, and international levels. The training also had the central objective of drafting a strategic plan for advocacy vis-à-vis various governmental, legal, and political bodies, aiming for the implementation of the Declaration with the active participation of peasants and other rural peoples whose rights are enshrined in the UNDROP.

In the framework of this first training in Brazil, participants from the various social movements that make up La Via Campesina in the country studied the history of the process leading up to UNDROP’s adoption, as well as the content of the instrument – highlighting peasants’ rights to land, biodiversity, seeds, and food sovereignty. In a second stage, they discussed concrete cases of violations of the rights enshrined in the UNDROP that have occurred in their national territory, perpetrated mainly by transnational corporations and agents of the agribusiness sector.

Leveraging the political capital of the social movements present in the training, driving the implementation of the UNDROP from a popular perspective is crucial within the scope of the arduous and long-standing work for social justice, agrarian reform, and food sovereignty in rural Brazil. In this sense, the strategic plan collectively drafted during the training provided important clarity on the path to be taken towards promoting and implementing the UNDROP in Brazil and translating its provisions into both legal frameworks and public policies.

Among the various initiatives to be carried out is engagement and advocacy with the United Nations (UN), particularly with its newly established Working Group (WG) on the UNDROP. By participating in the WG’s debates and collaborating with its work, peasant and rural organisations around the world can use this international mechanism to advance the implementation of the UNDROP in their respective countries. After all, one of the WG’s functions is precisely to recommend, support, and monitor UN member states in implementing the Declaration, so that it can serve as a direct vector in the elaboration of public policies, programmes, and laws that truly address rural inequalities.

In March 2025, the WG issued a public call for peasant and rural organisations, as well as governments and other institutions, to contribute to its next two studies which will address the following themes: i. global trends in the challenges affecting peasants; ii. peasants’ right to equal participation. Thus, La Via Campesina Brazil, through the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT), the Small Farmers’ Movement (MPA), the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB), the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST), together with Terra de Direitos and with technical support from CETIM, submitted a document to contribute to the WG’s studies based on the challenges faced by the Brazilian peasantry. The document, available here, presents a collective perspective on the current situation of rural peoples’ challenges in Brazil, summarised as follows:

Peasants, artisanal fishers, traditional peoples, and rural workers in Brazil face structural challenges that threaten their livelihoods and fundamental rights. Land concentration and agrarian conflicts are exacerbated by the lack of agrarian reform and the privatisation of common lands, leading to violence and impunity. Moreover, access to public policies is limited by bureaucracy, lack of technical assistance, and infrastructure, while the climate crisis and large-scale projects, such as dams, displace communities and degrade the environment. Peasant cultural identity is also threatened by the advance of agribusiness, which replaces sustainable practices with monocultures and intensifies the use of agrochemicals. The criminalisation of struggles for territorial rights and the lack of access to justice further perpetuate the vulnerability of these populations, particularly indigenous peoples, quilombolas (Afro-Brazilian communities), and extractive communities, who suffer violence and social exclusion.

The right to participation of peasants and rural workers in political decision-making still faces significant barriers in Brazil. The exclusion of these groups is evident in the lack of access to information, the difficulty of effective political representation, and the absence of free, prior, and informed consultations, especially in environmental licensing processes and public policy formulation. Traditional communities, such as indigenous and quilombola peoples, frequently have their rights violated, with no adequate channels to influence decisions that impact their territories and ways of life. Furthermore, political marginalisation is worsened by the dominance of agribusiness, which concentrates power and resources, limiting the voice of family farming and small producers in national and international decision-making spaces.

Despite these challenges, there are mechanisms and policies aimed at expanding rural participation, such as agricultural development councils (CONDRAF), discussion forums, and programmes to strengthen family farming. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP) and ILO Convention 169 provide legal bases to demand participatory consultations. However, the effectiveness of these instruments depends on social pressure, access to justice, and the State’s commitment to ensuring rural voices are heard. Social movements have played a crucial role in this struggle, promoting marches, land occupations, and political advocacy to ensure participatory rights are not merely formal but concrete and transformative.

Following the example of LVC Brazil, conducting training processes on the declaration at national and/or regional levels, developing a strategic plan by local movements for its promotion, and participating in the UN Working Group on UNDROP are essential steps to implement the declaration at national, regional and international levels. This is a fundamental path to breathe life into the declaration from the grassroots, through rights holders' appropriation of their rights and the integration of the UNDROP into their political and legal struggles for social justice and human rights for rural peoples.

La entrada Challenges facing the Brazilian Peasantry: The UNDROP as a Tool for Struggle se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

The Colombian Constitutional Court’s decision establishes a new legal precedent that advances the process of protecting peasants’ rights at the national level and consolidates UNDROP as a key reference instrument in this area.

The case behind this ruling concerns an elderly peasant couple from Saravena, in the department of Arauca, who lived on their farm called “El Paraíso.” After multiple floods caused by the overflowing of the Bojabá River, their home became uninhabitable. Since then, they have been living precariously with their son, without being recognized as internally displaced by the authorities or receiving any assistance from the Colombian state. The Court ruled that their right to a dignified life had been violated and that the state was obligated to provide them with appropriate protection.

In reaching its decision, the Court based its reasoning on Article 64 of the Constitution, as amended in 2023. This provision now recognizes peasants as rights-bearing subjects and requires the state to grant them special protection. It highlights the importance of peasant communities in territorial development, food sovereignty, and cultural diversity. On this basis, the Court affirmed that people displaced for environmental reasons, particularly peasants, must receive enhanced protection.

Although UNDROP is not explicitly mentioned in the ruling, its influence is evident. Indeed, the Declaration served as the reference for the reform of Article 64. UNDROP recognizes specific rights for peasants, such as the right to land, a healthy environment, and political participation. It also emphasizes the need for differentiated treatment for rural populations in vulnerable situations. Regarding forced displacement, UNDROP includes specific provisions to protect peasants from this practice:

Article 12.5 (Right to Justice): States shall provide peasants and other people working in rural areas with effective mechanisms for the prevention of and redress for any action that has the aim or effect of violating their human rights, arbitrarily dispossessing them of their land and natural resources or of depriving them of their means of subsistence and integrity, and for any form of forced sedentarization or population displacement.

Article 17.4 (Right to Land): Peasants and other people working in rural areas have the right to be protected against arbitrary and unlawful displacement from their land or place of habitual residence, or from other natural resources used in their activities and necessary for the enjoyment of adequate living conditions. States shall incorporate protections against displacement into domestic legislation that are consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law. States shall prohibit arbitrary and unlawful forced eviction, the destruction of agricultural areas and the confiscation or expropriation of land and other natural resources, including as a punitive measure or as a means or method of war.

Article 24.3 (Right to Housing): States shall not, arbitrarily or unlawfully, either temporarily or permanently, remove peasants or other people working in rural areas against their will from the homes or land that they occupy without providing or affording access to appropriate forms of legal or other protection. When eviction is unavoidable, the State must provide or ensure fair and just compensation for any material or other losses.

The Court’s decision thus demonstrates that UNDROP can produce concrete effects through domestic law. By inspiring the Colombian Constitution, it has helped establish a strong legal foundation on which the Court can now rely to protect peasants. Notably, it has expanded the concept of internal displacement beyond armed conflict to include the impacts of natural disasters.

In its ruling, the Court also calls on authorities to develop a specific public policy to address environmental displacement. It stresses the importance of considering the unique realities of rural areas and peasant populations, who often face multiple forms of vulnerability.

Ultimately, Ruling T-123/24 paves the way for broader application of peasants’ rights in Colombia. Thanks to UNDROP’s influence – which has been mobilised by the Colombian peasant movement vis-à-vis their national institutions – Colombian peasants now benefit from increased recognition of their rights, particularly in the face of climate change effects and inadequate institutional responses. This jurisprudence could set an important precedent for strengthening social and environmental justice in rural areas, serving as inspiration for judicial systems in other UN member states.

For more information on peasants’ rights in Colombia, you can read our article on the recognition of peasants in the Colombian Constitution.

La entrada Colombia: Constitutional Court Decision Protects Peasants Displaced by Natural Disasters se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

“The present Declaration also applies to indigenous peoples and local communities working on the land, transhumant, nomadic and semi-nomadic communities, and the landless engaged in the above-mentioned activities.” Article 1 §3 UNDROP

On March 13th, 2025, WAMIP held a webinar on the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP) 2026. The webinar was a complete presentation of WAMIP and of the lives of pastoralists around the globe, with presentation from representatives from : Jordan, India, Europe, Mongolia, Kenya, Uganda, Argentina, Morroco and Iran. They gave thorough analysis of the current context and crisis facing them, but also good exemples of advocacy and concrete programs on the field. You will find below all the recording of the webinar and all the materials shared by WAMIP after the webinar.

WAMIP IYRP 2026 Webinar: Recording, Insights & Additional Resources

We are pleased to share the webinar recording and presentation slides with you:
WAMIP IYRP 2026 Webinar – Watch here

Webinar Slides – Access here

Additionally, we would like to share two videos contributed by WAMIP members, highlighting the realities and experiences of pastoralist communities in different regions:
Latin America (Peru) – Watch here
South Asia (India) – Watch here

We are also grateful to Nyéléni Food Sovereignty Movement for publishing reflections from the webinar, with a special focus on pastoralist women’s leadership and resilience in honour of March as the month of Working Women’s Struggle. You can read their article here:
Voices of Pastoralist Women: Leadership and Resilience – Read here

As we move forward, we must continue to amplify Indigenous pastoralist voices in the governance of IYRP 2026. Let’s remember and renew our promise to leave no one behind through strengthening, recognising, and involving the pastoralist governance institutions to enable their participation in decision-making and policy-making processes linked to their destiny at all levels.

Here are the key calls to action raised during the webinar:

• Pastoralists as Right-holders, Not Just Stakeholders – Pastoralists must have a direct role in co-managing IYRP 2026, with pastoralist civil society organisations actively involved in its governance at all levels. We urge nation-states, with the support of FAO, to form smaller steering committees with key pastoralist right-holders and relevant stakeholders and launch a dedicated trust fund to implement actions. The governance of IYRP must acknowledge and integrate established pastoralist organisations, ensuring fair representation in decision-making, including the management of trust funds.
• Securing Land & Resource Rights – Immediate action is needed to halt land grabs, mining, and large-scale infrastructure projects that displace pastoralists. Governments must respect Indigenous land tenure, mobility rights, and access to water.
• Ensuring Connectivity & Mobility Rights – Animal trails, migration routes, seasonal pasture access, and customary governance systems (such as ICCAs) are crucial for sustainable rangeland management.
• Upholding Food Sovereignty & Trade Justice – The current global trade system prioritises profit over people. Alternative trade frameworks must safeguard small-scale food producers, ensuring fair markets and protection against agribusiness expansion.
• Empowering Women in Governance – Women pastoralists face exclusion from decision-making. Addressing structural barriers, securing land rights, and supporting their leadership in rangeland management are critical.
• Youth Engagement & Education – Young pastoralists need policies that protect their livelihoods, provide access to education, and integrate modern technology to sustain pastoralism as a viable way of life.
• A Broad Definition of Rangelands – Policies must recognise that rangelands include not just grasslands, but also forests, tundra, mountains, and post-harvest croplands.
• Global Solidarity & Coordinated Action – Pastoralists must unite with small-scale farmers and fisher movements to push for systemic change in governance, climate adaptation policies, and social protections.

We are committed to actively promoting IYRP through our networks and communications, ensuring Indigenous pastoralist communities remain at the center of global discussions on rangelands. We look forward to further collaboration with FAO, governments, and allied movements to advance these goals.

La entrada Webinar : Voices of Indigenous Pastoralists on 2026 – Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.