A milestone victory for Kenyan peasants!

In November, a milestone judicial victory for peasants took place in Kenya. As Karine Peschard explains in her article, the UNDROP provided an important legal leverage in a historic decision taken by the High Court of Kenya in favour of peasants’ right to save, use, share, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds. Three years after a group of Kenyan peasants filed the case, the High Court ruled Kenya’s Seeds and Plant Varieties Act unconstitutional, as the law not only criminalises the sale of uncertified seeds, but also curtails peasants’ control over harvests produced from protected varieties. Given its substantive legal and political outcome, this judgment “is a game changer for millions of Kenyan peasants and sets a powerful precedent for peasants’ rights and the right to seeds globally.”

In a powerful statement praising the Kenyan ruling, the experts of the United Nations Working Group on UNDROP highlighted that “this decision is a significant affirmation that the human rights of peasants and the imperatives of food security and biodiversity must prevail over overly restrictive intellectual property regimes.”

The European Union stands in favour of corporations monopolising seeds patents

In Europe, the European Coordination of La Via Campesina (ECVC) has recently denounced a harmful provisional agreement on GMO-NGT (Genetically Modified Organisms-New Genomic Techniques) made by the President of the European Council alongside negotiators from the EU Parliament and Commission. The agreement, which still needs approval by EU parliamentarians and member states, would deregulate most new GMO crops, treating them as if they were conventional plants, while removing traceability, labelling, and detection requirements.

The relevance of an international legally binding instrument for regulating transnational corporations and protecting rural women’s right to seeds

On the occasion of the 11th session of negotiations for a UN legally binding treaty to regulate transnational corporations, held at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in October 2025, Defending Peasants Rights interviewed a delegation from the Southern African movement Rural Women’s Assembly (RWA). They highlighted the impacts directly suffered by rural women and their communities from the activities of transnational corporations operating in their territories and countries. From seed monopoly to environmental pollution and human rights violations, transnational corporations have operated with impunity across Zambia, South Africa and Swaziland.

In this regard, also read the press release published by the United Nations Working Group on UNDROP in support of the binding treaty process.

The 7th Anniversary of UNDROP

The hard-fought UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) celebrates its 7th anniversary this month. Adopted on 17 December 2018, this declaration is a landmark victory for diverse grassroots rural movements that strongly advocated for an instrument capable of defining, protecting and advancing the rights of rural peoples worldwide. As a key legal and political instrument for the much-needed systemic transformation of global food systems, UNDROP provides leading international guidance for rural laws, policies and programmes that protect the rights of those who feed us, safeguard the environment, and advance food sovereignty.

The UN Working Group on UNDROP recently issued a statement commemorating the 7th anniversary of UNDROP, underscoring its central relevance in addressing the cross-sectoral and structural issues confronting rural peoples in today’s neoliberal and capitalist world. Check it out here!

Send us your proposals for publications and future collaborations

Defending Peasants’ Rights wishes you a prosperous 2026 in advancing rural peoples’ rights!

La entrada Newsletter n°9 | Seed Sovereignty: Advancements and Setbacks in the Right to Seeds se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

On November 27, 2025, the High Court of Kenya in Machakos delivered a much-awaited decision in a constitutional challenge to the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act mounted by smallholder farmers. The Court decided in favour of the petitioners on all counts, striking down various sections of the Act and Regulations.

As reported earlier on Defending Peasants’ Rights, the constitutional challenge to the Seeds and Plant VarietiesAct was filed in 2022 by a group of peasants of Seeds Savers Network against the government agency responsible for implementing the Act.

Revised in 2012, Kenya’s Seeds and Plant Varieties Act is a draconian law that prohibits peasants from saving, sharing, exchanging and selling seeds under penalty of criminal sanctions. In her decision, the judge declared that various provisions of the Act were contrary to the Constitution of Kenya, the FAO Plant Treaty and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). The judge ruled that the Constitution had to be read along with Article 9 of the Plant Treaty and article 19 of UNDROP, and that Kenya was bound by its obligations under international law in general and international human rights in particular.

More specifically, the judge struck down the section of the Act that gives inspectors who reasonably believe that a breach has been committed the power to seize and dispose of seeds. The judge ruled that this violates a peasant’s right to the privacy of their person, home and property, as enshrined in the Constitution. The Judge also noted that failure to define “reasonable belief” and to provide for an independent oversight mechanism could lead to arbitrariness and abuse.

Importantly, the judge declared that several provisions of the Act are unconstitutional because they infringe on peasants’ right to save, use, share, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds. These provisions criminalize the sale of seeds unless they are certified seeds sold by registered merchants, and limit peasants’ rights over their harvest grown from protected varieties.

The judge ruled that by restricting the right to save, share and exchange seeds, these provisions are contrary to the Constitution, which affirms that the State must recognize the role of science and Indigenous technologies, and recognize and protect the ownership of indigenous seeds and plant varieties, their diverse characteristics and their use by the communities of Kenya. Given the important contribution of smallholder farmers to food production, the Judge determined that these provisions also violate the right to food guaranteed by the Constitution, and Kenya’s obligation to take legislative, policy and other measures to achieve its progressive realization. Finally, the Judge also ruled that exorbitant registration fees, coupled with strict registration requirements, amount to indirect discrimination against smallholder farmers and peasants.

Regarding the right to participation, the Judge observed that many of the issues raised in the petition could have been avoided had the government ensured the right to adequate and meaningful participation by peasants, interested parties and the public in the process of developing the legislation. The Judge directed the government to ensure the right to participation in the process of amending the law to comply with the judgment.

It is not yet known if the Kenyan government will appeal the decision. In any case, this judgment is a game changer for millions of Kenyan peasants and sets a powerful precedent for peasants’ rights and the right to seeds globally.

***

Judgment of the High Court of Kenya, available here:
https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18166/eng@2025-11-27

Constitution of Kenya (in particular, arts. 11, 21(2) and 43(1):
https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/TheConstitutionOfKenya.pdf

Kenya’s Seeds and Plant Varieties Act:
https://upovlex.upov.int/en/legislation/text/506145

La entrada Landmark victory for Kenyan peasants and seed sovereignty se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

This publication is a joint work of Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, Association for Plant Breeding for the Benefit of Society, Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment, SWISSAID.

Seeds are at the hearts of peasants’ identity and struggles. With UNDROP article 19, it is now a recognized right. We are grateful to re-publish here this important publication on the state of seeds in the world.

“This dossier grapples with the potential and significance of seeds and their foundational role in our food systems. If we want to transform food systems, we must first change how we perceive and interact with seeds. Farmers and activists who defend farmers’ rights are exposed to a variety of threats and their work is often criminalized. This dossier is dedicated to them – and to all who work tirelessly to protect farmers’ seeds and defend seed sovereignty.“

La entrada Seeds at risk se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

La entrada FAO’s work on the themes of the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Peasantsand Other People Workingin Rural Areas (UNDROP) se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Council votes in favor of creating a Working Group on UNDROP

On October 12th, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted, with a very wide majority, for the creation of a Working Group dedicated to the UN Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. This Working Group will be composed of five experts, with balanced geographical representation. These experts role will be to monitor the effective implementation of UNDROP. It is a momentous decision from the Human Rights Council, strengthening the UNDROP at the international level. This special procedure was a demand of La Via Campesina and its allies, it’s a victory for them and peasants’ rights that we all celebrate!

We have published on Defending Peasants’ Rights La Via Campesina’s full statement on this historic victory HERE and to know more about this Special procedure, you can read HERE an advocacy note about it.

New training videos on our Youtube channel!

La Via Campesina and CETIM have created together a training course on UNDROP. All the training materials are now available on our website and Youtube channel! We have gathered all the materials for three learning sessions : History, Key Rights and Implementation. For these three sessions we asked peasants leaders and allies to make brief videos explaining a subject and giving concrete examples, you can find all those videos on our Youtube channel: @DefendingPeasantsRights

Poster of the UNDROP

In support of UNDROP, FIAN Belgium has created a poster with the titles of each rights of the Declaration. This work of art presenting UNDROP was made by artist Murielle Lô. The QR code on the bottom of the poster is a link to our website. It is a beautiful tool to raise awareness on peasants’ rights, don’t hesitate to download it and circulate it as widely as possible!

You can find the poster in multiple formats (png, pdf, eps) HERE.

The Right to Seeds in the spotlight

These past few months we published several content related to the right to seeds.We published an archive from before the adoption of UNDROP: an interview of Guy Kastler, a french peasant. In this video, he explains why a right to seeds has to be recognized in UNDROP, his explaination are still extremely relevant today.

We also published from Christophe Golay of the Geneva Academy, a Research Brief: The Right to Seeds in Africa. This research focus on the implementation of the right to seeds on the specific context of Africa. It joins the already published Research Brief on The Right to Seeds in Europe.

Don’t miss any of our news!

Subscribe to our Newsletter
Follow us on social media

Facebook Twitter Instagram

La entrada Defending Peasants’ Rights – Newsletter n°3 se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

La Via Campesina and CETIM have organized a training course for La Via Campesina members in August 2023, and are now making training materials available to all. This material is also available in PDF version here.

Session 2 of the UNDROP training seminar aims to provide a general overview and analysis of the key rights of the UNDROP, those that form the backbone of the instrument. This does not mean that other rights are less important, but we have identified these “key rights” as being the most buoyant and, in a way, the most claimed: right to land and natural resources; right to food and food sovereignty; right of rural women; right to social security; right to seeds; right to the environment, water and biodiversity; right to participation; right to an adequate standard of living and means of production; economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights in the context of peasant activities.

Objective of Session 2 “Key rights”: To gain a practical understanding of the core content of the UNDROP and what these articles mean in practice for peasants in the field.

Methodology: Participants will follow a series of video training sessions on key UNDROP rights. They will also be asked to read some key documents relating to each right.

RIGHT TO FOOD SOVEREIGNTY (art.15)

• Read the definition established at the Nyeléni Forum in 2007
• Read article 15 of the UNDROP
• See video training on food sovereignty, by Elizabeth Mpofu (ZIMSOFF, Zimbabwe)

• See the video of La Via Campesina “What is food sovereignty”?

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklet “Peasants’ rights and food production”
• CETIM’s training sheet “The right to food and food sovereignty”

Complementary materials for further reading:

• FIAN International’s briefing “Right to Adequate Food and Nutrition, and to Food Sovereignty”
• Research brief from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights “The rights to food and to food sovereignty
• Report from Friends of the Earth International “The UN Declaration on the rights of peasants as a tool for promoting collective rights“

RIGHT TO LAND (art.17)

• Read article 17 of the UNDROP
• See video training on right to land, by Paola Gioia (ABL, Germany)

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklet “Access to resources and means of production” (see in particular pages 4-5-6)
• CETIM’s training sheet “The right to land and natural resources”

Complementary materials for further reading:

• FIAN International briefing “The right to land and other natural resources”
• Research brief on the right to land by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights “The right to land and other natural resources”
• CETIM’s book “Right to land”
• International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPCFS) “People’s Manual on the Guidelines on Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests“

RIGHT TO AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING, A DECENT LIVELIHOOD AND THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION (art.16)

• Read article 16 of the UNDROP
• See video training on this right, by Diego Monton (MNCI Somos Tierra – UTRST, Argentina)

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklets “Access to resources and means of production” (see in particular pages 9-10) and “Peasants’ Dignified Lives and Livelihoods“
• CETIM’s training sheet “The right to an adequate standard of living, a decent livelihood and the means of production”

Complementary materials for further reading:

RIGHT TO SEEDS (art.19)

• Read article 19 of the UNDROP
• See video training on right to seeds, by Christophe Golay from the Geneva Academy (Switzerland)

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklet “Access to resources and means of production” (see in particular page 8)
• CETIM’s training sheet “The right to seeds”

Complementary materials for further reading:

• FIAN International briefing “The rights to seeds and biodiversity”
• Research brief on the right to land by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights “Right to seeds and intellectual property rights”
• Research brief on the right to land by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights “The right to seeds in Africa”
• Research brief on the right to land by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights “The right to seeds in Europe”

RIGHT TO PARTICIPATION (art.10)

• Read article 10 of the UNDROP
• See video training on right to participation, by Michelle Zufferey (UNITERRE, Switzerland)

Compulsory training sheets to read:Training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklet “Access to resources and means of production” (see in particular page 10)
• CETIM’s training sheet “The right to participation”

RIGHTS TO THE ENVIRONEMENT, BIODIVERSITY AND WATER (art. 18, 20 and 21)

• Read articles 18, 20 and 21 of the UNDROP
• See video training on right to participation, by Morgan Ody (Confédération paysanne, France)

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklet “Access to resources and means of production” (see in particular page 8)
• CETIM’s training sheet “The right to the environement”

Complementary materials for further reading:

• FIAN International briefing “Environmental and Climat Justice”
• FIAN International briefing “Rights to water and sanitation”

RIGHTS OF RURAL WOMEN (art. 4)

• Read article 4 of the UNDROP
• See video training on right to participation, by Chengeto Zumira (ZIMSOFF, Zimbabwe)

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklets “Peasants as political subjects” and “Peasants’ Dignified Lives and Livelihoods” (see in particular pages 6-7)
• CETIM’s training sheet “Non-discrimination against rural women“

Complementary materials for further reading:

• FIAN International’s briefing “Rural Women’s Rights“

RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY (art. 22)

• Read article 22 of the UNDROP
• See video training on right to participation, by Pramesh Pokharel (All Nepal Peasants Federation, Nepal)

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklet “Peasants’ Dignified Lives and Livelihoods” (see in particular pages 2-3-4)
• CETIM’s training sheet “Right to social security“

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS (art. 5, 13, 14, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26)

• Read articles 5, 13, 14, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the UNDROP
• See video training on economic, social and cultural rights, by Melik Özden (CETIM)

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• CETIM’s training sheet “Economic, social and cultural rights“

CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (art. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12)

• Read articles 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the UNDROP
• See video training on civil and political rights, by Melik Özden (CETIM) see above

Compulsory training sheets to read:

• La Via Campesina’s Thematic Booklet “Peasants as political subjects“
• CETIM’s training sheet “Civil and political rights“

La entrada TRAINING ON THE UNDROP – SESSION 2 “KEY RIGHTS OF THE UNDROP” se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

You can activate the English subtitles directly in the youtube video settings.

La entrada Video-interview with Guy Kastler (LVC): The importance of the rights to seeds for peasants se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

This Researche Brief is the summary of a longer publication on The Right to Seeds in Africa, you can find it on our website here.

The implementation of UNDROP represents a unique opportunity to redress the imbalance between, on the one hand, the lack of support for peasant seed systems worldwide, including in Africa; and, on the other, the massive support for commercial seed systems. This is essential for the protection of the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of peasants. It is also in the interest of all, to ensure the rights to food and food sovereignty, preserve crop biodiversity, and tackle climate change.
In 2018, the great majority of African countries voted in favour of adopting UNDROP, which is based on binding international human rights treaties. In accordance with the need to apply international instruments adopted by the UN General Assembly in good faith, and to give priority to human rights norms in international and national laws, reflected in UNDROP Articles 2.4, 15.5 and 19.8, the African Union (AU) and African states shall ensure that their regional and national laws and policies, as well as the international agreements to which they are party, do not lead to the violation but, on the contrary, to a better protection of the rights of peasants, including their right to seeds.

La entrada Reasearch Brief: The Right to Seeds in Africa 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.

On October 3^rd, 2022, the Kenyan Government lifted the ban on importation and cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) that had been in place for ten years. The Kenyan Peasants League (KPL) reacted immediately and filled a lawsuit against that decision. They also asked the High Court for conservatory measures, which were granted on November 29th, the Court decided the ban will remain until the matter is judged in court. Those conservatory measures are a first victory for the peasants.

The Government appealed the decision, but the Court of appeal sided with the High Court and KPL and left the conservatory measures in place. In its decision, the Court cited the lack of public participation, which was one of the main arguments of KPL, argument based both on the Kenyan Constitution and on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) article 10. UNDROP is a tool largely used by KPL in this struggle, both in and out of courts.

The struggle is far from over, since a complete trial and judgment has not happened yet, but the first decisions are good signs and KPL is determined to have the Rights of Peasants recognized and protected.

Introduction

The lifting of the ban on GMOs importation and open cultivation, via a Cabinet Dispatch on 3 October 2022, was a direct attack on the peasants way of life not only in Kenya, but globally, since the struggle against forces hell-bent on dismantling the peasants managed seeds systems is been ongoing worldwide.

The ban was put in place in after a series of actions by social movements calling for a ban on GMOs due to a better scientific knowledge of the harmful impacts of GMO on both health and the environment and for the protection of the agroecological practices of the small-scale farmers¹. A specific study linking GMO to cancer was detrimental to the adoption of the ban.

To the Kenyan Peasants League (KPL), the lifting of the ban instituted 10 years prior, did not come as a surprise since the current President of Kenya William Ruto has in the past been advocating for biotechnology as a solution to the food crisis we have in Kenya. For instance, in 2008 during the All Africa Congress on Biotechnology, when he was Kenya’s Minister for Agriculture, he indicated his wishes to “see all African countries adopt an enabling policy and regulatory framework for the development and application of biotechnology²”. In 2014, this time as a Deputy President, he made the case for Africa to use biotechnology in food production to deal with hunger and poverty³ and in 2015, he announced that plans were underway to lift the ban on GMOs⁴.

So, to KPL, it was just a matter of “when” but not “if” the 2012 ban was going to be lifted. So, prior to the lifting of the ban on GMOs in Kenya, KPL had already established a Working Group on GMOs that included advocates.

In the Cabinet Dispatch that lifted the ban, the Cabinet stated that it had considered various expert and technical reports on adoption of biotechnology, including reports from the Kenya National Biosafety Authority (NBA), World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United States of America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Upon the lifting of the ban, KPL quickly called for an emergency meeting and organized a media briefing, where it announced its intention to challenge the lifting of the ban in court.

Petition to the National Biodiversity Agency

In parallel, KPL also decided to present a petition to the NBA. A peaceful procession was organized on 12 October 2023 to present the petition to the NBA offices in Nairobi.

In the petition, KPL demanded that the NBA give access to the advisory it gave to the Cabinet and which was cited in the lifting of the ban. KPL also asked the NBA to avail the Prof Kihumbi Thairu Taskforce report⁵ commissioned right after the ban was enacted, to inform KPL whether the issues that were raised by Prof Kihumbu Thairu Taskforce had been addressed and that NBA provides evidence that there was a public consultation before lifting of the ban, as required under the article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) and article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya.

On 15 of November 2013, the taskforce released a report, where it came to the conclusion that the safety of GM foods had not been conclusively demonstrated to allow for the lifting of the ban. The taskforce gave some recommendations, which included: a need to develop guidelines for testing of GMOs, the priority of safety with regard to human health and the need to develop capacity for the determination of the safety of GMOs on a case-by-case basis through the national regulator – the NBA. Fundamentally, the taskforce noted that there was a need to develop adequate infrastructure for carrying out and where necessary, replicating, long term trials by Kenyan scientists funded solely by the Kenyan government.

In their response to KPL’s petition, the NBA stated that they were not involved in the process of lifting of the ban on GMOs and that they did not have the Taskforce report since the Taskforce was appointed by the Minister of Health and that the report was only submitted to the appointing authority. To KPL, this was a serious breach of the National Biosafety Authority Act and National Biosafety Regulations that places the role of regulating GMOs on the NBA and not on the Cabinet.

First victories : conservatory orders maintening the ban

By the time KPL was filing the matter to the High Court, the NBA had not yet responded. Before the Hight Court, KPL argued that the NBA denied KPL the right to information, as stated under article 11 of the UNDROP; read together with article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya. On 27 November 2022, the High Court granted KPL conservatory orders, reinstating the ban on GMOs until 15 December 2022, when the matter was coming up for hearing. On 15 December 2022, the High Court further extended the ban up to February 2023, despite protests from the government and the NBA. This suspension of the lifting of the ban was a first victory for the peasants.

Before KPL filed the matter, senior counsel Paul Mwangi had filed an application over the lifting of the ban on GMOs before the same judge. The judge however declined to grant him conservatory orders. KPL studied the application by Paul Mwangi to establish why he could not get orders. It emerged that the senior counsel based his arguments more on science when there is not yet an complete scientific consensus. KPL therefore decided to challenge the lifting of the ban on the basis of process, the right to information and to public participation. KPL argued that the Cabinet usurped the role of NBA, who had indicated that they were not involved in the process. KPL also stated that NBA abused our right to information by failing to provide information we had sought from them adding that there was no adequate public participation. The High Court agreed with our arguments and granted KPL the conservatory orders. On 15 December 2022, all the cases were consolidated.

Meanwhile in December 2022, the Government of Kenya, through the office of the Attorney General, filed an application at the Court of Appeal seeking to reverse the order of the High Court that reinstated the ban on GMOs. In the application, the Attorney General argued that the ban would hamper government agencies from performing their responsibilities, KPL in response argued that the orders were prohibitory orders that are not to be executed, but to be abstained and therefore, there was no subject matter to be preserved and nothing to be rendered nugatory. On 31 March, the Court of Appeal decided to maintainthe orders until the judgment of the case before the Hight Court. This is another victory to the peasants.

As this proceeding was going on, the NBA made an application at the High Court for a three-judges bench to be empanelled to hear the case on GMOs. This application was also thrown out by the High Court. Against that claimed, KPL’s had argued that the NBA had not displayed issues that needed a three-judge bench to address and that could not be addressed by the current presiding judge, Lady Justice Mugure Thandi.

Meanwhile the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) had moved to the Environment and Land Court in Nyahururu over the same matter. The Government, through the Attorney General, has filed another application seeking that the ongoing cases by KPL and by LSK be joint and heard at the Environment and Land Court (ELC) in Nyahururu, Kenya. KPL has however opposed the application by the Attorney General on grounds that the ELC court had no power to handle a case on violation of the constitution, while the constitutional Court cannot hear a case on environmental pollution since its of the jurisdiction of the ELC.. They are totally separate and distinct courts and matters are not transferrable between them⁶. The High Court is yet to pronounce itself on the matter. However, KPL believes that the latest move by the Government is an indication that it has lost the arguments and is seeking friendly judges who can be manipulated.

Conclusion

Despite the victories in the corridors of justice, the KPL also views this case as a very good avenue for domesticating the UNDROP in local laws. KPL’s main arguments are premised on the UNDROP and also supported by the Constitution of Kenya. KPL submitted that lifting of the ban abused the rights of peasants enshrined in the UNDROP, especially articles 10 on the Right to Participation; article 11 Right to Information; article 12 Access to Justice; article 19 Right to Seeds and article 26 Cultural Rights and Traditional Knowledge. That this Declaration is at the centre of a high-profile case like this one is already making the UNDROP more popular both locally and regionally.,Groups have moved to the East African Court of Justice on the same matter and grounds.

While the ban is still in place, the war is far from over given the machinations by the government and the total capture of the State by powerful corporations. KPL is thanking international partners including the La Via Campesina, the GMWatch, GMOFreeFlorida, GMWatchIndia and GMFreeUSA groups for providing solidarity and materials that were very useful in our application. KPL also thanks the Thousand Currents for supporting the matter. KPL is still calling for more support as it is anticipated that the matter will continue to the Supreme Court.

Cidi Otieno,

Ag. National Convener and Policy Chief and Advisor

Kenyan Peasants League

1 Kenya: Agricultural Lobbyists Demand a Stop to GMOs. Available from:<https://africa.peacelink.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_12714.html> [6 June 2023]

2 ISAAA Inc. Kenya Agri Minister Calls for Clear Direction for Biotech. Available from:<https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=3188>. [6 June 2023].

3 EXPOGROUP. Kenya Chooses GM and Biotech, But there are Smarter Ways to Feed Africa. Available from:<https://www.expogr.com/expokenya/detail_news.php?newsid=73&pageid=2>. [6 June 2023]

4 Citizen Digital. DP William Ruto Announces Plans to Lift Ban on GMOs. Available from:<https://www.citizen.digital/news/dp-william-ruto-announces-plans-to-lift-gmos-ban-97796>. [6 June 2023]

5 In November 2012, not long after the enactement of ban, the Public Health Minister, Beth Mugo, appointed a Taskforce led by Prof. Kihumbu Thairu to review and evaluate information on the safety of GMOs. This was after an outcry by the biotech industry following the ban.

6 The Standard. State Fight to Have GMO Freeze Cases Consolidated. Available from<https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001474532/state-fights-to-have-gmo-freeze-cases-consolidated>. [6 June 2023].

La entrada The legal fight of the Kenyan Peasants League against the lifting of the ban on GMO in Kenya se publicó primero en Defending Peasants' Rights.

This briefing was first published on the Geneva Academy website on March 6th, 2023. You can find it here.

Our new Briefing The Right to Seeds in Africa – authored by Dr Karine Peschard, Dr Christophe Golay and Lulbahri Araya – explores the implications of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) for the right to seeds in Africa.

‘For too long, peasant seed systems in Africa have been neglected and marginalized by laws, regulations and public policies geared toward the needs and interests of the corporate sector. The implementation of UNDROP represents a unique opportunity to redress this imbalance and is essential for the protection of the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of African peasants’ explains Dr Golay, Senior Research Fellow at the Geneva Academy.

‘It is also in the interest of all, to ensure the rights to food and food sovereignty, preserve crop biodiversity, and fight climate change’ he adds.

La entrada The right to seeds in Africa 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.