Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 targets organic seeds, aiming to replace them with modified seeds, say smallholder farmers.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

Ssetabi Rauben, a smallholder farmer from Kicuculo village in Mubende district, has a deep connection to farming that dates back to his youth. His personal journey into farming, driven by his family’s need for a livelihood, is a testament to the importance of smallholder farmers in our agricultural system. Ssetabi’s story is just one of many that highlight the potential impact of the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 on individual farmers.

“With no chance for going further in education, my father gave me land to start a living, and I had to move on. I didn’t go far with my education, so the only resort was to do agriculture since it was my family’s source of living,” He said in an interview with the Witness Radio team.

At 26, Ssetabi, a father of one, dedicates most of his two-acre farm to maize and beans. However, his future in farming, a field he knows best, is under threat. The local seeds he relies on may be outlawed by the 2025 Seed and Plant Varieties Bill of the EAC, potentially dimming his hopes.

The Seeds and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, recently introduced by the Council of Ministers of the East African Community (EAC), is part of a long-term drive to unify seed regulations across the region.

The draft Bill, as witnessed by Witness Radio, aims to provide for the coordination of evaluation, release, and registration of plant varieties among Partner States; to establish standard processes for seed certification and protection of plant varieties within the Community; and to provide for related matters. According to its promoters, the Bill, based on Article 106 of the Treaty, aims to provide for seed certification, testing, and marketing, thereby facilitating and creating an enabling environment for private sector seed multiplication and distribution.

However, the bill has sparked opposition from civil society organizations, farmer networks, and development partners across the EAC. They argue that it could consolidate corporate control over seeds, curtail the rights of smallholder farmers, and jeopardize agro-biodiversity.

Further, analysis by experts reveals that provisions that risk restricting farmers’ traditional practices of saving, exchanging, and selling seed could have far-reaching consequences for food security, agro-biodiversity, and the livelihoods of millions of rural households.

According to civil society organizations, the Bill threatens to criminalize or restrict traditional practices like breeding, saving, sharing, exchanging, and selling farm-saved seeds. It supports breeders’ rights instead of farmers’ rights. The Bill places a heavy focus on commercial and certified seeds, which could undermine the diverse, locally adapted varieties essential for resilience against climate change, pests, and diseases. This overlooks the importance of farmer-managed seed systems, which are not only central to rural livelihoods and food sovereignty but also an integral part of our cultural heritage.

Many voices warn of serious weaknesses of the bill, which lead to further marginalization of indigenous and smallholder farmers and offer no legal recognition or protection for local farmer-managed seed systems. Despite this, smallholder farmers who are likely to be affected produce the highest amounts of food in the world.

In a critical discussion about the draft bill by Civil Society Organisations and smallholder farmers across East Africa and beyond, several experts on the topic voiced their concerns. Their united front of opposition, a powerful force against the bill, underscores the collective voice’s strength in shaping the bill’s fate.

Dr Peter Munyi, a professional lawyer with extensive experience in agricultural law, explained that the draft stipulates strict testing procedures for seed varieties, with criteria such as distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability being decisive for seed approval. He, however, mentioned that indigenous or farmer-managed seed systems, which are crucial for biodiversity and local food security, are often unable to meet these criteria.

He added, “The testing takes place in laboratories and the value for use and cultivation entails multi-location trials, which is also very expensive, and the only people who can really afford these tests would be commercial seed breeders, perhaps research institutions that USDA and other agencies also fund.”

Mariam Mayet, Executive Director of the African Center for Biodiversity, revealed that the bill is discriminatory and inequitable in its approach because it doesn’t treat all farmers and seeds equally. Her insights add weight to the concerns raised by smallholder farmers and civil society organizations.

Considering the reality of the lives of small-holding farmers, such as Mr. Ssetabi, it is clear that the bill would place an unreasonable burden on the local small farming community.

“We plant and replant our seeds. Our system, inherited from our fathers, has always involved

harvesting, selecting the best breeds, and replanting them; now, if there is a shift as the bill proposes. It’s challenging for people like me because seeds can be expensive at times. Having to buy new seeds every planting season will deepen us into poverty, and people will soon abandon agriculture for those with money.” This financial burden is a stark reality for smallholder farmers like Ssetabi, and the bill only exacerbates their economic struggles.

Considering that smallholder farmers like Ssetabi contribute significantly to the World’s food production, the potential impact of the bill on food security is a cause for concern. Once this bill is passed, there will be a burden on food security and, hence, an increase in poverty levels. The bill’s potential impact on food security cannot be overstated, making it a critical issue for all stakeholders.

Smallholder farming accounts for approximately 75 percent of agricultural production and over 75 percent of employment in East Africa, with up to 70–80 % of seeds planted originating from farmer-managed seed systems. The bill must be reconsidered in light of these implications to prevent a potential crisis. The significant role of smallholder farmers in East Africa’s agricultural sector underscores the urgency of this issue.

“Yet, these systems are in no way recognized in the draft Bill, and the provisions of the bill would install new barriers for farmers’ seed systems and prohibit the saving, reuse, exchange, selling, and sharing in the seed system”. A civil society network raised the alarm.

Ssetabi says. “Some of us rent land, so this is another challenge. Such seeds also need fertilizers.

Now, look at the costs of renting land, seeds, and fertilizers. Don’t you think this is a ploy to remove us from the farming system?” He questioned.

The concern over the bill extends beyond Uganda to other countries where it is being introduced. In Kenya, for example, farmers and the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS)—a government parastatal mandated to ensure the quality of agricultural inputs and produce, thereby safeguarding the economy, the environment, and human health—rejected the bill. They warned that its enactment could weaken government oversight and expose farmers to substandard and counterfeit seeds.

“Giving seed producers the responsibility to determine the quality of their own seeds will erode government oversight and compromise seed quality,” The Managing Director of KEPHIS, Prof Theophilus Mutui, mentioned in an article published by the Eastleigh Voice.

Civil society organizations appeal that if the bill is to proceed, it must include strong, explicit protections for smallholder farmers, particularly around exceptions to breeders’ rights.

Additionally, stakeholders should advocate for a separate legal framework or policy that recognises and supports farmer-managed seed systems. Without such measures, the region risks enshrining a seed regime that deepens inequality, erodes biodiversity, and undermines the right to food.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Happening shortly! Kenya’s upcoming court ruling on the Seed Law could have a significant impact on farmers’ rights, food sovereignty, and the country’s food system.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

Machakos, Kenya — Kenya’s High Court in Machakos will deliver a landmark ruling today, Thursday, November 27, 2025, at 9 EAT, in a case that could redefine seed rights, food sovereignty, and the survival of millions of smallholder farmers who depend on indigenous seed systems in Kenya.

The ruling comes after 15 smallholder farmers from the Seed Savers Network filed a constitutional petition in 2022, claiming that the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act (SPVA) and the Seeds and Plant Varieties (Seeds) Regulations, 2016, have restrictive provisions that violate fundamental rights protected by Kenya’s Constitution.

The ruling could determine whether smallholder farmers can save, trade, and sell indigenous seeds, directly affecting their livelihoods and cultural food practices, which should resonate with the audience’s sense of justice and support for farmers.

The petitioners claim that sharing or selling farm-saved seed that is not registered or certified by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) puts smallholder farmers, who provide the majority of Kenya’s food, at risk of being criminalized.

They claim that existing legislation compels farmers to use a costly, exclusive, and incompatible formal seed system, conflicting with the varied, adaptable, and culturally significant varieties protected under farmer-managed seed systems (FMSS).

The petitioners claimed that the SPVA and related regulations violate Article 11(3)(b) of the Kenyan constitution by failing to acknowledge and safeguard indigenous seed systems and cultural heritage, Article 2(6) by violating international treaties on the protection of genetic resources that Kenya has ratified, Article 43(1)(c) by violating the right to sufficient food and freedom from hunger, and Article 27 by discriminating against smallholder farmers by favoring corporate seed breeders.

The SPVA was first passed in 1972, but significant revisions in 2012 and 2016 brought Kenya’s legal system into compliance with the UPOV 1991 convention, enhancing commercial breeders’ intellectual property rights and extending KEPHIS’s regulatory requirements.

All seeds, whether native or not, must be certified before being sold or traded under these reforms. The petitioners contend that these prices farmers out of the seed system and render traditional seed practices unlawful.

The case comes amid rising concern about seed laws, particularly in East Africa. Recently, the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties draft Bill, 2025, which was formally introduced to the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) for its consideration in June 2025 and aims to harmonize seed regulations across the East African Community, has been criticized for favoring commercial seed companies.

The draft Bill, according to its supporters, intends to establish standard procedures for seed certification and the protection of plant varieties within the Community; to provide for related matters; and to coordinate the evaluation, release, and registration of plant varieties among Partner States.

Such bills aim to commercialize seeds, which is likely to disenfranchise smallholder farmers, and the local farmers claim that the standards are difficult to meet.

Despite the push toward commercial seed regulation, smallholder farmers produce over 70% of Kenya’s food and more than 80% of the World’s food, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Experts warn that laws restricting FMSS will erode agrobiodiversity, increase dependence on commercial seed corporations, and diminish community resilience in the face of climate change.

Farmers, lawyers, and civil society organizations believe that the outcome of this court case is crucial because it will protect indigenous seeds, support food sovereignty, and ensure farmers can save, share, and sell seeds, safeguarding their future and rights.

The ruling is expected to be delivered at 9 EAT. Witness Radio will keep you posted on the case update.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Activists storm TotalEnergies’ office ahead of G20 Summit, demand end to fossil fuel expansion in Africa

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

South Africa – As South Africa prepares to host the G20 Leaders’ Summit on the 22nd and 23rd, another gathering has already made its voice heard. Activists, including climate activist groups and affected communities, stormed the Johannesburg offices of TotalEnergies on Thursday to express their disappointment over the company’s continued investments in fossil fuels, which they say have resulted in gross human rights violations.

The action, they said, is part of a broader fight to “End a Century of Exploitation, Greenwashing, and Fossil Fuel Expansion in Africa.”

A coalition of 29 organizations marched to the company’s offices in Johannesburg, delivering a petition alongside banners reading “Africa Is Not for Sale,” “Stop EACOP,” and “100,000 Displaced.” They called on the France-based corporation to halt all new oil and gas exploration and development in Africa, including the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), the Mozambique gas project, and offshore drilling in South Africa.

They also demanded that TotalEnergies acknowledge and compensate communities whose land, livelihoods, and ecosystems have been harmed by its operations.

The demonstration was organised by Fossil Ad Ban, StopEACOP, Green Connection, Earthlife Africa, Power Shift Africa, and others. It coincides with the G20 Leaders’ Summit, which begins in Johannesburg on Saturday, the 22nd of November, 2025.

“We are marching shortly before the G20 Summit to draw world leaders’ attention to our calls,” said Lazola Kati, the campaign coordinator for Fossil Ad Ban.

The G20, composed of 20 countries, the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU), addresses global economic issues, including climate change mitigation, international financial stability, and sustainable development. This year marks the first G20 Summit to be held on African soil, under the theme “solidarity, equality and sustainability.”

Activists say the Summit offers a critical moment to expose injustices committed by Global North countries and corporations that claim to promote development in the Global South, while instead profiting from these projects that leave affected communities in misery.

Their central message targets TotalEnergies. Activists accuse the company, now marking 101 years of existence, of causing environmental destruction, land dispossession, and human rights violations across the continent.

“From the Niger Delta to Cabo Delgado, from EACOP’s route through Uganda and Tanzania to the expanding offshore oil blocks along South Africa’s coast, TotalEnergies has built profit on the suffering of people and the degradation of ecosystems,” reads part of the coalition’s letter addressed to TotalEnergies South Africa.

They argue that while the company brands itself as a “green” and “responsible” energy leader, it continues to pour billions of dollars into new oil and gas projects, while spending millions on advertising and sponsorships to present itself as climate-friendly, an act they describe as corporate greenwashing that obstructs real climate action.

Patrick Edema of StopEACOP noted that the pipeline will pass through 178 villages in Uganda and 231 in Tanzania, causing massive physical and economic displacement. “Our message is clear: TotalEnergies’ century of harm ends now. We will not allow you to mortgage our future for your fossil fuel profits. We will #StopEACOP,” he said.

An estimated 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania have already lost, or will lose, land used for farming or livestock due to the project.

In Mozambique, TotalEnergies’ fossil gas project in Cabo Delgado has also caused widespread displacement. The company and its partners are constructing a gas processing plant on a 7,000-hectare site allocated by the government, a move that required the relocation of 557 households, many of whom say promised compensation and replacement land never materialised.

“Africa does not need another century of fossil fuel colonialism,” the coalition stated in its letter. “We need a future powered by justice, renewable energy, and community-led solutions.” They called on TotalEnergies to align with the demands expected to be raised at the G20 and COP30 conferences: to end fossil fuel subsidies and to stop all new oil and gas development.

Lisa Makaula, advocacy officer at The Green Connection, emphasized the urgency for communities to speak out. “The world is at a tipping point, and as developing nations, we cannot afford to invest in fossil fuel projects that will worsen the impacts of climate change. Fisher livelihoods are already being destroyed in West Africa due to oil and gas exploration. We need committed leaders who will ensure that oceans are protected and that communities are not left behind as we transition to a low-carbon economy, with equity and fairness at the forefront.”

In their letter, the coalition further demands that TotalEnergies commit to a just and equitable transition that prioritizes renewable energy, distributive justice, and African ownership of the energy transition.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Environmentalists reject TFFF, warning it will deepen forest destruction.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), unveiled with great fanfare on November 6th, 2025, as a pre-event ahead of the 30th UN Climate Conference in Belém, is already facing a storm of criticism from civil society and environmentalists.

More than 200 civil society organizations, Indigenous networks, and environmental justice groups from every corner of the globe are demanding an immediate halt to the initiative, calling it “a false solution that will deepen forest destruction rather than stop it.”

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) is a proposed global financing mechanism intended to support the long-term protection of tropical forests. Its goal, according to those behind it, is to offer stable, ongoing funding to countries that preserve or expand their forest cover, using investment-generated returns to reward practical conservation efforts.

But activists warn that the facility is being promoted as a bold new funding model for forest conservation. Yet, in reality, it is built on a financial structure that they say will benefit wealthy investors while burdening tropical forest nations with more debt, potentially leading to their further exploitation.

While in Belém, Brazil, on November 6th, global leaders officially launched the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), with a collective investment of USD $5.5 billion following an initial US$1 billion committed by Brazil in September this year.

COP30 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10th to 21st, 2025. UN Climate Change Conferences (or COPs) take place every year, and are the World’s only multilateral decision-making forum on climate change that brings together almost every country.

According to the Fund promoters, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) emerges as an innovative, essential, and strategic financing solution designed to permanently protect tropical forests, the biological and climatic pillars of our planet, through addressing the climate crisis, combating biodiversity loss, and recognizing Indigenous Peoples and traditional Communities in climate justice.

The TFFF’s governance is split into two parts: The Tropical Forest Investment Fund (TFIF), run by the World Bank under its own governance system, responsible for managing investments and deciding how much money is available for forest payments, and the TFFF Secretariat, which oversees monitoring, reporting, and the distribution of those payments to participating countries.

But environmentalists argue that this financial model reveals a more profound, more troubling logic. They say the initiative is a colonial plan by Northern elites, for Northern elites, and designed by wealthy investors who get paid first. At the same time, forest peoples receive only “what is left.”

“TFFF is yet another trap that will not stop deforestation. TFFF is a colonial plan of Northern elites, by Northern elites, and for Northern elites that will make the rich richer by extracting wealth from the global South. Initiatives like this one end up reinforcing a capitalist, racist, colonialist, and patriarchal vision of the world that only deepens the current injustices and manifold crises,” they wrote in a petition calling individuals to join efforts to stop the initiative.

The TFFF claims to be a “new hope” for tropical forests worldwide. However, it’s not designed to address the drivers of deforestation, but to benefit investors in financial markets that are actually driving deforestation.

Far from protecting forests and their communities, this new market-based initiative will actually reinforce a capitalist, racist, colonialist, and patriarchal worldview that only deepens current manifold crises and injustices. It could lead to the displacement of indigenous communities and the loss of their traditional lands, a direct violation of their rights, and a significant social injustice.

The World Bank is set to host the TFIF and influence daily fund management. Activists argue that this Bank has a long record of financing projects that violate community rights, promote industrial plantations, and deepen debt crises in the global South. For instance, the Bank’s support for large-scale infrastructure projects has often led to the displacement of local communities and environmental degradation.

For critics, this is proof that the TFFF is yet another top-down, Northern-led mechanism destined to repeat past failures. Similar initiatives in the past have often failed to address the root causes of deforestation, instead focusing on market-based solutions that benefit investors more than local communities.

It is high time to address the root causes of deforestation: unjust economic relations and trade, land grabbing by agribusiness, and expansion of mining and other extractive industries. These are the systemic issues that perpetuate deforestation and environmental degradation. Our commitment is to resist struggles against large-scale projects that destroy forests and fuel climate chaos. TFFF will undermine solidarity among communities protecting their territories.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter