More than a statement, the Declaration is the fruit of an unprecedented collective process: shaped through years of local and regional assemblies, and translated into 18 languages during the Forum to ensure that every voice could be heard and every word shared in equality.

It stands as a common political compass for the movements of the world – guiding struggles for food sovereignty, health for all, social and solidarity economy, climate and gender justice, and peoples’ rights. It denounces the systems of capitalism, patriarchy, and colonialism that drive hunger, war, and ecological collapse, while affirming the power of peoples to build economies of care, solidarity, and self-determination.

The Kandy Declaration calls on movements everywhere to act in unity, defend the commons, and transform global governance so that it serves people, not profit.

Born from collective wisdom and multilingual solidarity, it is a living roadmap for the years ahead – lighting the way toward peace, dignity, and life for all.

Systemic Transformation, Now and Forever!

La entrada The Kandy Declaration: A Collective Roadmap for Systemic Transformation 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.

Carbon markets vs. peasant autonomy: UNDROP’s role in safeguarding rights and data sovereignty

There is an urgent need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels to reduce the devastating impacts of the climate catastrophe. Carbon market mechanisms, such as those recently pushed through by the COP29 presidency, are false solutions and a dangerous distraction from States fulfilling their obligations to reduce emissions and address the root causes of climate change.

Increasingly, carbon trading projects concern agricultural areas and directly involve peasants and other small-scale food producers. A recent report by FIAN International and MAELA Colombia explores the complexities and risks associated with carbon markets, particularly their impact on small-scale food producers. Carbon markets, increasingly adopted by governments and corporations as a response to climate change, have drawn criticism due to their questionable environmental benefits and potential to harm the human rights of rural communities.

These concerns are particularly relevant in Colombia, where a lack of regulatory frameworks puts Indigenous Peoples, Afro-Colombians, and peasant communities at risk.

One key example developed in the report is the Asómbrate project, which aims to integrate Colombian smallholder farmers into global carbon markets. Although marketed as a way to boost farmers’ income through agroforestry and carbon trading via Rabobank’s ACORN digital platform, participants have raised concerns. These include lack of transparency, potential negative environmental impacts, and the erosion of small farmers’ autonomy.

The report stresses that carbon markets rely on complex, data-driven technologies—such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence—which add opacity to the system and exacerbate power imbalances. This trend represents a troubling shift towards the financialization of nature, turning ecosystems into tradeable assets and undermining local, community-led models of sustainability.

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) plays a pivotal role in addressing these concerns. Colombia is obligated under international law to protect the rights of these communities, particularly their autonomy over farming practices and control over their own data. The report urges Colombia to implement stronger legal frameworks that safeguard these rights, calling for participatory processes to ensure fair and sustainable carbon market practices.

Furthermore, international institutions are encouraged to develop comprehensive guidelines to ensure carbon markets respect human rights, especially for Indigenous Peoples and rural communities. By centering policies around human rights frameworks like UNDROP, a more just transition towards sustainable food systems and climate action can be achieved.

Read the report

La entrada Coffee and carbon in Colombia: Human rights concerns at the intersection of food systems, climate change and data-based technologies se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

At the 55th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2024, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, presented his annual report. This year, he highlights the challenges facing small-scale fishermen in the context of the climate crisis. He calls on States to take urgent action to protect the rights of small-scale fishermen, fishworkers and indigenous peoples, while preserving the biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems, in the face of a dominant system that promotes large-scale industrial fishing.

Findings: impacted and marginalized populations at the heart of food sovereignty

The Special Rapporteur’s annual report focuses on people whose livelihoods and food supply are linked to the oceans and rivers: small-scale fishermen, fish workers and indigenous peoples. To consider the right to food of these populations, he begins by outlining their current situation. According to the Rapporteur, they are facing two current crises: overfishing and climate change, while still coping with the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, which had a severe impact on them (§2-6).

The Special Rapporteur would also like to highlight both the common and specific problems of the populations discussed in the report. They share a predominant role in feeding their respective communities and in their economic life. They are also the first to be impacted by the effects of climate change, notably the degradation of marine ecosystems and extreme weather events (hurricanes, heatwaves), while playing an important role in preserving the environment and preventing the effects of climate crises (§7). Finally, they are all politically marginalized, and their voices are rarely heard or taken into account when decisions are made that affect them (§8).

As far as small-scale fishermen are concerned, the Special Rapporteur highlights the Voluntary Guidelines or Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. For the Rapporteur, they “are necessary to address the long-standing
political marginalization and exclusion of small-scale fishing communities” (§19).

For the Special Rapporteur, self-determination lies at the heart of the relationship between indigenous peoples and their coastal and marine environment (§22). He notes that indigenous peoples who fish consume 15 times more fish products than the rest of the population, making them particularly dependent from a nutritional point of view (§21).

The Special Rapporteur also highlights the gender issue in the fishing industry, and in particular the extremely gendered division of labor in this sector: men in catching or production, and women in processing and sales. He points out that the overwhelming majority of women work in the informal sector, and are therefore extremely vulnerable (§26-27).

The Rapporteur devotes several paragraphs to the situation of fish workers, stressing in particular the dangerous nature of this sector. Throughout the production chain, workers are exposed to sometimes lethal dangers (§32). The Rapporteur is also concerned about wage conditions, as workers have very little job security and rarely receive a decent wage (§33-34). Similarly, he notes the virtual absence of extended social protection in this sector (§39). It also recalls the prevalence of child labor in the sector and its danger from all points of view (§36-37). Finally, he points out that there is little collective organization, association or trade union, both because of the informality of the sector, and because of blockages by employers (§35).

For a political response to crises

It is in this context that the Rapporteur points out that overfishing and the industrial exploitation of marine resources have reached critical levels. Between 1974 and 2017, the proportion of stocks exploited at biologically unsustainable levels rose from 10% to 34.2%. Climate crises exacerbate these problems by disrupting marine ecosystems and displacing fish populations (§41). In Mexico, for example, rising water temperatures in various regions are causing extreme weather phenomena (§45). The Rapporteur also points out that “certain populations of plant species have already disappeared locally, and forecasts reveal a trend towards higher extinction rates, particularly in warmer regions”. At the same time, offshore oil and gas exploitation worsens the situation by polluting the oceans and hampering the livelihoods of artisanal fishermen, as is the case in Guyana where these platforms block traditional fishing grounds (§42-44).

Local initiatives and a holistic approach to adapting to climate change do, however, offer glimmers of hope. In South Africa, for example, solidarity among small-scale fishermen, reinforced by favorable court rulings that have recognized the consequences of oil and gas exploration on the rights of small-scale fishermen, demonstrates the resilience potential of coastal communities (§46).

To ensure a sustainable future, the Rapporteur believes that “adaptation requires a set of decisions that are as much political, social and cultural as they are economic and ecological” (§47), with inclusive policies and judicious use of traditional and indigenous knowledge.

International law framework

To shed light on the situation of these populations, the Rapporteur looks at the international legal framework. His view of the latter is highly critical, asserting that international conventions have often favored intensive exploitation of marine resources without regard for the needs of coastal communities and indigenous peoples. For example, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while aiming to reconcile extraction with the restoration of fish stocks and biodiversity, considers the oceans first and foremost as natural resources to be exploited and managed by States in such a way as to enable the extraction of the maximum possible resources (§52). The Rapporteur stresses that fishing subsidy policies, often misguided, have contributed to fleet overcapacity and overfishing, jeopardizing the sustainability of stocks (§71-72).

Commodification and financialization of oceans and aquatic life

In addition to the challenges of overfishing and climate crises, these communities are facing the growing commodification and financialization of the oceans. According to the Rapporteur, three economic systems pose major problems: the blue economy, blue transformation and blue finance. These approaches, focused on economic growth, often neglect human rights, food security and the needs of small-scale fishermen.

Blue finance is a system that turns the ocean into a financial asset, accentuating inequalities, compromising transparent governance and creating risks of human rights violations, particularly for indigenous peoples and small-scale fishermen. One of the most common instruments is debt-for-nature swaps. Under this practice, an industrialized country swaps the debt of a developing country for a promise by the latter to devote all or part of the sum owed to environmental protection. However, there is a lack of clear financial and ecological benefits, high transaction costs, lack of transparency and potential tax-haven detour (§90).The risks are heightened by the adoption of the Global Biodiversity Framework (Kunming-Montreal Framework), in respect of which indigenous peoples point to the risk of dispossession of their territories through the creation of colonial conservation arrangements, notably through the establishment of protected areas off-limits to human activities (§90).

Similarly, the Rapporteur stresses that the blue economy system promoted by the World Bank, focused on the sustainable use of marine resources to promote economic growth, is an approach that in no way deviates from the usual course of the capitalist economy (§76) and often neglects human rights, food security and the social and economic elements necessary for these populations to be able to provide for themselves, in particular by ignoring small-scale fishermen engaged in the equitable management of marine resources within community systems (§77-78).

The FAO’s Blue Transformation system for balancing economic interests with human rights through the development of sustainable aquatic food systems is singled out by the Rapporteur. Aquaculture is envisaged as a solution to the depletion of fish stocks and food insecurity, but the Rapporteur points out that it entails risks such as the spread of disease and the escape of farmed fish contaminating wild stocks, thus affecting indigenous populations, and above all that “hunger and malnutrition are not due to a lack of food and are therefore not a production problem.” (§82).

Conclusion and recommendations

At the same time, the major importance of the adoption in 2018 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas is apparent throughout the report. The Rapporteur does not hesitate to use the Declaration as a basis and support for his recommendations, such as the one in which he recalls that “States must protect water-related ecosystems […], and strive to restore them, considering the close ties that unite fishermen with nature”, thus echoing paragraphs 4 and 5 of article 21 of the Declaration. He also places emphasis on UNDROP with regard to the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines, and in particular the right to participation of fishermen and fishery workers (§19). He also draws on UNDROP to recall the right of workers to collective organization (§35), a right found in its article 13§5. Beyond these examples, it should be noted that the Special Rapporteur cites UNDROP each time one of the rights it contains is concerned. This systematic use shows that UNDROP is well integrated as a legitimate basis for claiming rights and for the changes needed to implement them.

Faced with these complex challenges, the Special Rapporteur proposes a number of avenues to explore. In general, he recommends that States recognize and support small-scale fishers, indigenous peoples and fishworkers, by ensuring their participation in decision-making processes (§94). More specifically, states should protect customary land rights and the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as the right of women fishworkers to decent work (§96). They should also preserve aquatic ecosystems, taking into account local knowledge and supporting small-scale fishermen in their activities (§97). To guarantee fairness on the markets, states should set up social protection schemes, improve access to finance and markets, and strengthen the negotiating capacity of fishing workers (§98). The rapporteur stresses the strategic importance of creating national action plans for small-scale fishing to support the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, and of rethinking the blue economy approach by prioritizing human rights and environmental sustainability (§101).

La entrada Fisheries and the right to food in the context of climate change se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

Abstract
Focusing on the Guarani Mbyá and the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) in Santa Catarina, this thesis explores the similarities and differences between indigenous and landless food sovereignty. It shows how their narratives are intertwined and how their unique legal and cultural positionalities shape their food practices. Brazil’s high land concentration and dominant agri-food practices put pressure on both groups. This pressure generates similar food sovereignty practices to preserve their food systems while promoting favorable public policies. Uniquely, the MST, as part of the settler society, sees agrarian reform and food practices as a means to change the Brazilian land and food system. Instead, for the Guarani Mbyá, food practices are an integral part of their culture and a way to preserve their self-determination. The Guarani case illustrates the complex, non-linear relationship between mental health and access to traditional food production and consumption, both within their territories and in public spaces.

La entrada Common Struggles, Different Roots: Indigenous and Landless People’s Food Sovereignties in Southern Brazil se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

The indigenous nomadic peoples’ organization Wamip, which you will find throughout this newsletter, took an active part in the UNDROP negotiation process at the Human Rights Council alongside La Via Campesina. Wamip is calling for 2026 to be declared the International Year of Rangelands and Shepherds, and we relay its appeal here.

“Our way of life has existed since time immemorial, evolving together with the landscape. But today pastoralism is threatened as never before by the forced industrialization of livestock farming. We have to stop the loss of grazing land, “land grabbing” and the restrictions on mobility that make it impossible to maintain a viable pastoralist system. Currently we are defining a possible campaign on Pastoralists Rights.“

La entrada Nyeleni: Introducing the message of pastoralist communities – a voice from the land se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

Unjust criminalization

14 members of the Isan minority practicing family peasantry in the village of Sab Wai, Thailand, have been unjustly accused of destroying and “encroaching on the forests” even though they inhabited and lived off this land before the area became the protected Sai Thong National Park in 1992.

These accusations stem from an instrumentalization of the government’s 2014 climate change mitigation standards (Forest reclamation policy, NCPO Orders 64 and 66). These policies, adopted as part of Thailand’s participation in the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, were supposed to prevent the misuse of forest land by big business. In practice, however, 10 million people – 2,700 forest communities – across Thailand are threatened with eviction from their land¹. While these norms stipulated that “any operation must not have an impact on the poor people who have lived on these lands”, over 7,000 villagers are imprisoned every year on charges of “encroaching on forests” (and over 46,000 people have been arrested since the policy was implemented²).

“The Thai government instrumentalizes its commitment to the Paris Agreement and the need to reduce carbon emissions and criminalizes poor villagers, while indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities actually contribute to forest protection through their traditional ways of life and culture.³”

Manushya Foundation, August 4, 2022

In 2018, the 14 Sab Wai villagers in question were ordered to pay fines, leave their land and destroy all their facilities. 11 of them were placed on probation and 3 others were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 5 months to 4 years. These sentences were confirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2019, and by the Supreme Court in 2021.

Recourse to UN special procedures

Faced with this situation, human rights organizations⁴ supported the Sab Wai villagers and turned with them to the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council.

On June 23, 2019, they submitted their requests to seven special rapporteurs: on extreme poverty, on the right to food, on the right to adequate housing, on the right to a healthy environment, on freedom of opinion and expression, on freedom of peaceful assembly, and on human rights defenders. Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to report on the situation of human rights and advise on their implementation. To this end, they can issue thematic reports, carry out country visits, receive complaints and communicate with the States concerned.

The Special Rapporteurs who were contacted by the villagers asked the Thai government to explain their actions and their compatibility with international law. In their communication with the Thai government, they also warned that any evictions would violate the villagers’ human rights, in particular their rights to housing, food, water, health and work. The Special Rapporteurs underline that: “If the environment must be protected to guarantee the enjoyment of human rights, the environment itself depends on the exercise of human rights. It is therefore essential that conservation policies integrate these rights.⁵“

On June 10, 2020, a year after the rapporteurs’ referral, the Thai government partially answered their questions, evading in particular the frequent threats made by Sai Thong park officers towards the 14 villagers. As the situation did not improve for them, a second urgent complaint to the UN special procedures was sent in August 2022.

The special rapporteurs have once again turned to the Thai government. In their communication, they deplore the fact that eviction orders have been issued without offering alternative housing or farmland, or providing adequate compensation. They underline the contradiction (or hypocrisy) of the authorities, who criminalize communities dependent on forests and on subsistence and family farming under the pretext of combating climate change, while at the same time authorizing numerous investors to operate in protected areas and even withdrawing hectares from nature reserves to transform them into special economic zones.

The Special Rapporteurs also request precise information on this situation and, pending a response from the Thai authorities, demand that they take all necessary precautionary measures to put an end to the alleged violations and prevent their recurrence.

According to recent information from the Manushya Foundation, the threat of eviction has been lifted for a year while the authorities find a solution.

Welcome convening of the Declaration of the Rights of Peasants

In their most recent communication, the Special Rapporteurs express grave concern that the Thai government is failing to take into account the impact of its policies on the human rights of forest-dependent communities, in particular their right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food and housing. This right is recognized in article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is also mentioned in several articles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other Rural Workers (UNDROP), for example in articles 16 and 17.

The Special Rapporteurs drew on these international human rights instruments at the end of their communication to remind Thailand of its obligations. Indeed, Thailand has ratified the above-mentioned Covenant – which is a binding treaty – and voted in favor of the adoption of UNDROP at the United Nations General Assembly.

Two articles of the Declaration were invoked by the Rapporteurs in the case of the Sab Wai villagers:
Article 17.1 recognizes the right of peasants and workers in rural areas to land, water bodies, coastal and fishing zones, pastures and forests. They can use and “manage them in a sustainable manner, to ensure an adequate standard of living, to have a place to live in security, peace and dignity, and to develop their cultures“.
Article 18.3 states that: “States shall comply with their respective international obligations to combat climate change. Peasants and other people working in rural areas have the right to contribute to the design and implementation of national and local climate change adaptation and mitigation policies, including through the use of traditional knowledge and practices.“

The mention of these articles is welcome, as it testifies to the increasingly frequent use of this young declaration – adopted in 2018 – in the UN system (See C. Golay’s article). The use of the Declaration by the rapporteurs contributes in particular to raising awareness of this text, but above all to establishing its scope and pointing out to States the need for them to integrate these rights into their national policies and legislation. It also highlights the need for a special mechanism dedicated to the Declaration within the Human Rights Council.

The more the various UN bodies and farmers and others working in rural areas mobilize the Declaration, the more it will take root in the human rights landscape, becoming an essential instrument at all levels.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Thong_National_Park#cite_note-SCMP-20200202-4 ︎
2. https://www.mekongeye.com/2023/01/16/thailan-troubled-forest-policy/ ︎
3. Petition to the United Nations for urgent measures to protect the 14 inhabitants of Sab Wai https://www.manushyafoundation.org/_files/ugd/a0db76_b0596c8c728849b2b163130b061f4548.pdf p.4 ︎
4. Isaan Land Reform Network, Manushya Foundation, Focus on the Global South, iLAW, Protection International, Institute of Human Rights and Peace STudies Mahidol University, Rangsit University ︎
5. Communication from the special rapporteurs to the Thai Government, AL THA 7/2019, August 19, 2019. ︎

La entrada In the name of climate: The criminalization of peasants and forest guardians in Thailand se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

In this paper the two authors, who were key actors of the adoption of UNDROP, explain how the UNDROP came to be, some of the rights enshrined in it and finally they open perspectives for the future.

There are many reasons to consider the Declaration as one of the most relevant actions in the realm of human rights law taken by the United Nations in recent years. Some of them are the recognition of peasants as specific subjects of rights; the reaffirmation of existing standards tailored for the reality of people living in rural areas; and the development of international law to address existing gaps in the protection of their rights in complex subject matters such as the right to land, the right to seeds, and the right to means of production. In underscoring the importance of the Declaration for the world, this research paper narrates the process of construction of the Declaration, its contributions to international human rights law and stresses on its potential […]

Maria Natalia Pacheco Rodriguez and Luis Fernando Rosales Lozada

La entrada The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas: One Step Forward in the Promotion of Human Rights for the Most Vulnerable se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

When the UNDROP was adopted at the United Nations General Assembly in December 2018, Canada abstained. Despite that, Canada is one of the first places where UNDROP has been explicitly cited by a provincial court in a case related to migrant workers’ rights. Jessie MacInnis explains for us the dynamics at play in Canada on Peasants’ Rights and the importance of case law.

First, to give us some context, could you describe us the general landscape of agriculture in Canada?

Agricultural policies have increasingly tied agriculture to a corporate system in Canada. Recent examples relate to the reduction of government oversight of seeds and gene-edited plants. The Canadian government has put its faith in agribusiness and biotech corporations instead of science and public interest. It’s very scary for farmers, especially for organic farmers, such as myself, who may suffer financial, health, and ecological implications from increasing corporate capture of seeds and the gutting of publicly-funded seed research and development.

COVID-19 has shown the cracks and deep rooted inequities that keep land inaccessible, rural communities gutted of resources, and farmers indebted and dependent on the companies selling inputs and chemicals. It also showed the dependence on a constant supply of migrant workers who suffer from human rights abuses. Yet it has been a time of enormous profit increases for corporations in the sector. On top of that we have the climate crisis and the income crisis, with income that have been stagnant for years and many farmers relying on off-farm work to make ends meet. Agriculture policies are beginning to wake up to the realities of the climate crisis, with more funding available for on-farm climate adaptation, but the income crisis is still prevalent for small-scale and family farms, which are the backbone of the food system.

Ƒinally, If we talk about agriculture in Canada, we have to acknowledge that it is built on settler colonization and stolen land. The National Farmers Union (NFU) is engaging in conversations between farmers and Indigenous Peoples, conversations about land equity, land back, and food sovereignty, but it’s just the beginning. Our agriculture is built on colonial violence that still hasn’t been reconciled. Farmers have a critical role to play in both acknowledging our relationship to the land and finding pathways forward towards living in right relations with Indigenous Peoples.

In this agricultural landscape we have a plurality of perspectives with regards to how agriculture policies should be developed, and whose goals it seeks to achieve. Some of the bigger agriculture organizations definitively may have historically had more sway with policymakers, but the NFU and other food sovereignty activists are gaining ground, especially at local and regional levels.

In 2020, Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision based on UNDROP in defense of a group of migrant farm workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can you tell us more on this decision?

This case shows the legal potential of the UNDROP, I think legal action is one pathway for countries who have not approved the Declaration at the United Nations to incorporate its articles and set legal precedents.

In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic the Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights used Article 23 of UNDROP in a provincial court in defense of a group of migrant workers facing dangerous, overcrowded living conditions.

To give some context, Canadian farms employ nearly half a million agricultural workers through a federal program. This program has been riddled with accusations of human rights violations over the years: poor living conditions, low wages and no pathways to permanent residency. At the same time, Canada is dependent on their labour to ensure the food supply.

In March 2020, just after the state of emergency was announced, the federal government mandated a 14-days isolation period for all temporary foreign workers entering Canada, at the same time ensuring workers subjected to isolation in groups would have at least 2 meters per person at all time and limiting the numbers of workers living together in a lodging.

When this policy was mandated, a major industrial farm in Ontario (central Canada) that employs migrant workers, submitted two inadequate self-isolation plans before requesting a hearing regarding the public health order limiting the numbers of farm workers in one lodging. At the hearing the farm argued that the requirement of three farm workers per lodging was arbitrary and failed to recognize the significance of migrant farm workers to Canada food supply. They argued they had not been able to bring in as many migrants as they would normally, and this jeopardized their food production.

The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario responded by saying that: “decreasing health inequities as required under the guidelines requires that the number of workers that are allowed to isolate together is such that the risk posed to their health is comparable to the rest of the population when they’re quarantined. Allowing larger numbers to isolate together exposes migrants farm workers to a level of risk not tolerated for others in the community, thereby increasing vulnerability of an already vulnerable group.”

In reaching this outcome, the Court cited the UNDROP for the first time in Canada. The way they cited it is important: “…furthermore the UNDROP is part of the body of HR laws and norms to which Canadian adjudicators may look in interpreting statutory or common-law obligations and in reviewing administrative decisions.”. They cited article 23.1, which states: “Peasants and other people working in rural areas have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”.

So the context and the outcome of the case is demonstrative of the applicability of the Declaration in the Canadian context. Promoting this case is something we need to keep doing. It’s strategic to expand the network of human rights lawyers that are aware of UNDROP and to give them this as an example.

Now that you have this case law, what are the next steps?

I think the first consideration is to choose the right level on which to work. The way I see it, there must be critical analyses and linkages made at the local level first, and there is a lot of value in building capacities locally and then scaling out and up. Although UNDROP is a tool that we can use at any scale, sometimes it might be more applicable at local level . In Canada, manyagricultural policies are made at the provincial level (with the exception of trade and seed policy, for example). At this level, there is typically a better understanding among farmers of what their collective needs are, and also a greater capacity to advocate for tangible policy change. I think there is potential in applying very specific rights to very specific situations, rather than attempting to implement the UNDROP at a national level. We can make the connection here at home regarding how to apply to our context. The missing link here is the political education: we need engaging and relevant popular education tools to demonstrate the connectivity between this somewhat esoteric UN Declaration and the realities of farmers in rural Canada. I think the NFU is doing a good job of connecting our current agriculture policy work to the UNDROP, which is a critical first step in simply making people aware of its existence.

At the national level, this case law on migrant workers rights could hold a lot of weight in terms of precedent, but we face hurdles as at the local level in terms of scaling out the basic understanding of UNDROP beyond NFU members and human rights lawyers. In Canada, I would argue that knowledge of human rights – especially related to agriculture – is low. The more that we educate the public about the need to shift agriculture policy in a rights-based direction, the more likely we are to see the UNDROP being utilized more in legal and policy contexts alike.

What would you say could be the other rights to focus on for the implementation of UNDROP in Canada?

The land question requires serious consideration in Canada. The UNDROP offers text on the right to land that is a radical departure from the way land tenure and policy is set up here. However, we cannot overstep or contradict the work being done by advocates of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). There would need to be serious coordination to make sure both UNDRIP and UNDROP land rights are implemented complementarily.

We are hearing a lot from young people in the NFU about land. When they talk about what their needs are in terms of advocacy technical support, accessing farm land and capital are the most fundamental issues they identify as barriers in terms of getting into agriculture. Also, there is the succession crisis: we have a rapidly aging population of farmers, the average age is 55 now. A problem, among many, is that there hasn’t been any sort of pension support for farmers in the past, so upon retirement many farmers sell their farmland to the highest bidder in order to have a dignified retirement. That has put up huge roadblocks for young people who don’t have a lot of capital, especially those who are not from farm families. We also need to consider who is going to take over the grains farms and commodity farms when those farmers retire. Young, first generation farmers are starting new farms, but the majority are small-scale due to the capital requirements of larger operations. I’m afraid of the corporate consolidation that will continue to unfold if this and the next generation cannot afford to operate larger farms.

So, considering the multiple crisis, we need to be talking about tangible alternative land tenure solutions that take in consideration the needs of Indigenous communities and farmers of all ages around us. We are thinking of creative ways to access land, whether in co-op or land trust models, but we also need to advocate for government supports that reinforce our efforts. There are a lot of questions and few answers about land succession and that is something that as Youth President of the NFU I want to work on. Using the UNDROP as an aspirational framework for land rights in this country could be a unifying concept if we can scale out the understanding of its relevance to the Canadian context.

Another area that is particularly relevant to the Canadian context is seeds. The NFU has a long history of working towards seeds sovereignty. Using article 19 is very timely, as seed sovereignty is under more threat now than it has ever has been. The federal government has essentially given the biotech company free reign in the food system. This time around, they have done so by removing safety checks on corporate science and denying transparency to the public. The Agriculture Minister announced that Canada will exempt gene-edited plants from regulation and mandatory public notification unless they contain foreign DNA or if they are herbicide tolerant. For all other changes in a gene-edited plant, companies will decide whether their product should be assessed by a federal body. So, biotech companies will have final say over whether their products may cause environmental harm, and the public won’t know about the quality of the assessments they choose to do or if they do them at all. Scary stuff.

We used to have really robust public seed breeding, but it was dismantled over the last two decade. We have seen seeds increasingly come into corporate control, but we know that a good public system is possible. This is what the NFU is pushing for. The more deeply ingrained the corporate seeds agenda gets into our agricultural policies, the more challenging it’s going to be to dig ourselves out of this mess. Now we even have conglomerate for four seed corporations seeds con that changed their name to Seeds Canada, which sounds like a government body. These changes are happening quickly, it’s frightening. The public should be up in arms about the corporate consolidation of seeds and using UNDROP as a foundation is a good place to start pushing for change.

Seeds are one of the most precious and deeply cultural resources that we have. Article 19 really reinforces the Convention on Biodiversity and the Treaty on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Canada has signed both. It has also signed and ratified UNDRIP, which also make direct reference to indigenous right to seeds. There is a strong case to be made that what’s happening now is going against what Canada has already signed and the fact that Canada hasn’t sign UNDROP should not remove it from the list of reasons why we should question what the government is allowing corporate giants to do.

What do you think are the main challenges to implement the UNDROP?

One of the major obstacles is language used in the UNDROP. It’s challenging to get the ear of policy makers because of the understanding of the word peasant and of the peasantry as a social group, it’s not well understood in Canada and the English language more broadly, because it’s often referred to in a pejorative way. There are strong cases for the political use of the term peasant, but when it comes to actual policy making and advocacy work there are still a lot of disconnects. Here, agriculture policy is geared towards corporate industrial farming and the language of peasant might denote a political or social identity contrary to what Canadian agriculture is trying to be perceived as at home or abroad. ‘Peasant’ flies in the face of ‘entrepreneur’, and gives the impression of backwardness to those who are not familiar with it in a political sense. In the same way, I think that one of the reasons why the government abstained during the adoption of the UNDROP at the UN is that they cannot see themselves in this term or how it could be applied in this context. Ultimately, there is still a lot of work to do in order to get everyone on the same page in terms of to the applicability of that kind language in the Canadian context.

So how to bridge that gap for farmers that are peasants in a global sense?

Someone who I looked up to a lot and consider a mentor, Nettie Wiebe, she is a former president of the NFU and an ICC member of LVC, she was present at the beginning of LVC. She was quoted by saying that when she thinks of the word peasant to her that means people of the land. This resonates with me: I consider myself a ‘person of the land’ because I work with land, nurture it, attempt to live in harmony with it and not extract from it. She believes that it’s really important to take that language back, to say that we are peasants because it’s our relationship to land and food that distinguishes us as a social group, that we are not part of the capitalist machine. We may function within a capitalist system, but we are not necessarily seeking capitalist ends, if that makes sense.

As you mention earlier, Canada has finally adopted the UNDRIP, after abstaining it at the General Assembly of the United Nation, how does this could influence and help the implementation of UNDROP?

What we desperately need in the food sovereignty and agroecology spaces across the country is to build coalitions and solidarity networks. We need to get out and talk to farmers who may not have the same politics or fundamental values, or speak with the same language, but at the core have the same needs and rights. We need to build bridges between farmers and towards people who have been dispossessed from their land such has indigenous people and people of colors. We need to reach out and find ways to make sure that our movement is growing. It’s only with that kind of growth and building of our network that we are ever going to have the capacity to do the sort of organizing that was accomplished in ratifying the UNDRIP in Canada.

I know that we have a strong base, but we also need to extend and expand and that has to come with a human touch. We have to go out to our communities and have open discussions with other farmers and people on the land that may not feel connected to a farming community or a more progressive community like the NFU, but maybe would welcome it giving the opportunity and someone reaching out. Speaking to peoples’ basic needs and desire to be part of community that is moving forwards together can be greater than any specific political opinion. Most farmers are part of the dominant farm organization, not the NFU, and it’s up to us to be creative and to reach where they are, not where we wish they were, politically. Through building this extended and expanded community we can use UNDROP as our building block, but at the grassroots level is where it should happen.

La entrada Interview of Jessie MacInnis, small-scale farmer in Canada and Peasants’ rights activist se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

In February 2020, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) handed down a ruling recognizing the rights of both indigenous peoples and peasants. It orders that indigenous peoples’ right to land be restored, and that their territory be returned to them, but at the same time, it relies on the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants to protect the rights of non-indigenous peasants who are going to be displaced. In this way, it balances the rights of these two communities, and gives us a first example of successful articulation between the two UN Declarations of Rights.

For the first time in a contentious case, the Court analysed the rights to a healthy environment, to adequate food, to water and to cultural identity autonomously on the basis of article 26 of the American Convention, ordering specific reparation measures for the restitution of these rights, including actions for access to water and food, for the recovery of forest resources and for the recovery of indigenous culture.

The case is linked to the claim for recognition of land ownership by Indigenous Communities belonging to the Wichí (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí) and Tapy’y (Tapiete) peoples in Salta Province, Argentina (on the border with Paraguay and Bolivia). These lands have also been occupied by other settlers and an international bridge was built without prior consultation by the state. There has been a constant indigenous presence in the area since at least 1629.

In its ruling, the Court determined that the state violated the right to communal property by failing to provide legal certainty and allowing the presence of non-indigenous “creole” settlers to continue in the territory. This is despite the fact that the indigenous claim to ownership has been valid for more than 28 years. It also concluded that Argentina does not have adequate regulations to sufficiently guarantee community property rights.

In reference to the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), this ruling is interesting, as the conflict includes peasant families who have been settling in indigenous territories for decades, encouraged by public officials, seeking to interfere in the territory of indigenous communities using land claims.

However, peasant families (creoles, as they are called in the ruling) are also vulnerable and suffer violations of their rights. In this context, the judgment characterises these families according to the definition expressed by the UNDROP and, citing it, establishes the guidelines to build a dialogue and a policy that advances towards the relocation of these families and their crops and animals, so that the state can fulfil its obligation to recognise and make effective the communal property of indigenous families, but taking care in the process to guarantee the rights established in the UNDROP.

The Court ordered the State of Argentina, within a period of no more than six months, to title, delimit and demarcate the 400,000 hectares claimed within lots 14 and 55 in a single collective title in the name of all the indigenous communities living on these lots; and to eradicate all the wire fences and take the necessary measures to prevent the erection of new enclosures, including their construction and implementation, in consultation with the communities.

In reference to the relocation of the peasant families, this sentence states in paragraph 136:

“The State’s remarks about the Creole settlers who inhabit lots 14 and 55 are in line with the considerations that have been made about peasants in the United Nations, through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (hereinafter “Declaration on Peasants”).”

In paragraph 138, it notes that “peasants generally suffer disproportionately from poverty, hunger and malnutrition”; they have or often have, due to “various factors”, “difficulties in making their voices heard and defending their human rights”, including “access to courts, police officers, prosecutors and lawyers”. In particular, the Declaration on Peasants notes that “access” to land and natural resources “is increasingly difficult” for “rural dwellers”, and that various “factors make it difficult” for them to “defend […] their tenure rights and ensure the sustainable use of the natural resources on which they depend”. The Declaration on Peasants states that “international human rights norms and standards” must be “interpreted and applied in a manner consistent” with the “need to better protect the rights of peasants”. The Court clarifies that it is not assessing state responsibility on the basis of the Declaration on Peasants, but refers to it only as a complementary reference which, in line with Argentina’s remarks on the vulnerability of the Creole population, shows the relevance of taking into account the particular situation of this population in order to safeguard their rights.

Furthermore, in paragraph 138 it clarifies: “Now, as it has already been said, the ownership of the indigenous communities over 400,000 hectares of lots 14 and 55 is not in doubt. The State, in order to guarantee this right, has had to demarcate the indigenous property, as well as adopt actions to ensure the transfer or relocation of the Creole population (Peasants) outside of it. Without prejudice to this, the way in which the State has to comply with its obligation cannot be ignored. In this sense, Argentina must act in accordance with the rights of the Creole population (peasant population)”, see infra, para. 329 (d), and footnote 323 of the Judgment.

Beyond the fact that this process at the IACHR is fundamentally based on the rights of indigenous peoples, it is important to highlight the fact that in developing the issues that have to do with the peasant community in the territory, the court relies on the UNDROP to safeguard rights and administer the procedures of the measures and actions that it demands from the Argentine state.

We can therefore assert that, despite the fact that the Argentinean state abstained in the vote of the United Nations General Assembly when it adopted the declaration, the UNDROP is already an international standard of new rights for the IACHR, and therefore future claims concerning violations of peasant rights in this country can be brought before this court with positive expectations for the peasants whose rights are violated.

You can access the full judgment or its summary (both in Spanish) at the following sites:

• Summary: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/resumen_400_esp.pdf
• Full sentence: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_400_esp.pdf

Diego Montón

MNCI Somos Tierra

Peasant Rights Collective of Via Campesina International

La entrada Inter-American Court of Human Rights: first case law on the links between the Declarations on the Rights of Peasants and Indigenous Peoples se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

This guide was first published on Fian International website on May 4th, 2021. You can find it here.

This guide aims to provide practical guidance for food producers’ organizations, civil society organizations (CSOs) as well as governments and public institutions about how to implement peasants’ and Indigenous Peoples’ rights to seeds in national and regional policy frameworks.

Its objective is to provide a useful tool for actors who engage in seed-related policy processes (revision of laws, drafting of new laws etc.) at national and/or regional level and who are eager to ensure that these respect, protect and promote peasants’ and Indigenous Peoples’ rights and autonomy over seeds. The authors are aware that the struggle for conserving and further developing agricultural biodiversity is not limited to legal strategies, but starts with the concrete, daily work of peasants and Indigenous Peoples to conserve, select, save, multiply, store, exchange, sell and further develop their seeds.

However, peasants’ and Indigenous Peoples’ rights to seeds can only come into effect if they are recognized and enforceable through laws. Such laws must then be enforced by States through adequate institutional frameworks, while ensuring accountability and remedy for rights holders, i.e. peasants and Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, the struggle for human rights-based seed policies and laws is of crucial importance for the conservation of biodiversity and social justice.

Download

La entrada Recovering the cycle of wisdom: Beacons of light toward the right to seeds se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.