Connect with us

NGO WORK

What future for seeds under the African Free Trade Area?

Published

on

The African Union is putting the finishing touches to the draft protocol on intellectual property rights to the agreement establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Once ratified, this text will form an integral part of the AfCFTA and will be applied across all 54-member countries. The protocol will apply to all categories of intellectual property, including plant varieties, genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Specifically, it will aim to promote “coherent” intellectual property rights policy and a harmonised system of intellectual property protection throughout the continent (article 2.2.).
Given that intellectual property rights privatise agricultural biodiversity – our collective heritage and the cornerstone of food sovereignty – the implications of this protocol on seeds and the rights of peasants and rural communities in Africa must be carefully analysed.
Around the world, free trade agreements are forcing the privatisation of seeds, whether through patents or plant breeders’ rights. These rights enable seed companies to demand royalty payments from farmers for each generation of seeds they use, over a period of 20 to 25 years. According to seed companies such as Syngenta and Bayer, without these payments they will be unable to invest in research.
This same system is now rapidly gaining ground in Africa, potentially upsetting relationships between citizens within members states, and even between the member states themselves.
Article 8 of the draft protocol addresses this issue. It stipulates that state parties shall provide protection for new plant varieties through a legal system that includes farmers’ rights, plant breeders’ rights, and rules on access and benefit sharing “as appropriate”.
Furthermore, it adds that states shall comply with “additional obligations” set out in an annex to be developed once the protocol is adopted. Upon adoption, this annex, along with the annexes on traditional knowledge and genetic resources, will have the same legal value as the protocol (article 41 of the protocol).
Our analysis of these provisions seeks to address the following questions: What does this protocol mean for African countries? How will they implement it? What impact will it have on farmers and food sovereignty in Africa?
The meaning of the protocol
Spurred on by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and under pressure from other bodies, half of all African countries have already introduced an intellectual property rights system on seeds. The vast majority follow the model of the 1991 convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). (See graph.)
This system is highly criticised for promoting genetic uniformity of crops and preventing peasants from reusing seeds. The question now is whether the AfCFTA protocol will challenge this dominant system. The final draft text suggests that the answer is ‘no’.
Despite progressive-sounding references to farmers’ rights and benefit sharing, the protocol sets out the same requirements as the WTO, i.e., states must set up a plant variety protection system. Given that half the African countries already adhere to the UPOV model, it is highly likely that the AfCFTA protocol will simply reinforce, or even accelerate, this trend.
The protocol’s approach, consisting of requiring both the protection of breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights, as well as rules on access to genetic resources, is a ploy in the sense that the use of “as appropriate” strips it of all relevance. Presented in this way, the provision becomes more of a guideline, with member states left to apply this article in their own territories as they see fit.
Naturally, it will be implemented in line with their existing obligations, whether these stem from the WTO, the African Intellectual Property Organisation (OAPI) or the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO). This “fait accompli”, with half the states already bound to UPOV to varying degrees, makes it difficult, or even impossible, to deviate from the status quo.
UPOV in conflict with all other agreements
As UPOV does not recognise farmers’ rights, whether derived from the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture or the UN Declaration, it enters into direct conflict with these agreements. UPOV refuses to include rules on access to resources and benefit sharing, as set out in the Convention on Biological Diversity or, once again, the FAO Treaty. Since they are not “suitable” for UPOV, these additional elements will not materialise.
The conflict goes further still. In articles 18 and 20, the AfCFTA protocol requires states to oblige breeders to respect three conditions before they are granted a right to a new variety. These three conditions are: (i) to state the source of traditional knowledge or resources utilised in developing the new variety, (ii) to provide proof of free, prior and informed consent from the competent authorities under the relevant national regime, and (iii) to demonstrate proof of fair and equitable benefit sharing arising from the use of such resources or knowledge under the relevant national regime.[1] Yet these conditions do not correspond to UPOV rules, so what is the likely outcome?
It is highly likely that the African countries that conform with UPOV will continue to do so, even if they hardly benefit from it. It may be the case that those who wish to go further will do so, by applying additional conditions. However, we cannot see how governments will change the conditions for granting plant variety rights in UPOV member countries. In these countries, there is a risk that the protocol’s provisions will go unheeded.
It is hard to see how the draft protocol could achieve its objective of promoting coherence and harmonising intellectual property rules and principles in Africa if all AfCFTA member countries are given free rein to implement the protocol’s requirements as they see fit. Perhaps the annexes, which are still being negotiated, will shed light on this.
Conflicting farming models
The draft protocol to the AfCFTA agreement comes at a crucial time for Africa. The continent is divided in two on how it views the future of agriculture in Africa and the role of farmers. Some advocate and adhere to the idea of agribusiness taking a lead, with or without the involvement of small farmers. Others are seeking to strengthen family, peasant and autonomous farming and agroecology. These two rather opposing approaches are based on completely different seed systems and discussions about rights.
Across a number of countries, the industrial system promoted by UPOV is coming under fire. This can be seen in Benin, where farmers’ organisations are taking a stand against the government’s proposal to join UPOV. This is also evident in Kenya and Ghana, where legal proceedings are underway to amend or declare unconstitutional UPOV-based plant variety laws. Furthermore, in Southern Africa, a campaign to block alignment with UPOV, precisely because of the threats it poses to family farming in the sub-region, is slowing down progress on the ARIPO project. It can be seen in Tunisia and Mali, where civil society organisations are promoting a completely different approach to seed laws, based on the demands and criteria of the farming communities themselves. Lastly, it is apparent from the many initiatives and caravans run by local communities in alliance with others, lobbying local authorities and raising public awareness to call for an end to UPOV in favour of fundamental respect for farmers’ rights.
This conflict between production models and rights systems is reflected in the field of animal farming. The government of Burkina Faso was recently granted an exclusive right to the term “poulet bicyclette” (“bicycle chicken”, a common term for native chicken). It is a registered trademark and applies to live chickens, chicken meat and veterinary products for chickens. This exclusive right is effective in all 17-member countries of OAPI for a period of 10 years. However, the term “bicycle chicken” has been used across Western and Central Africa for a very long time to refer to local breeds, peasant breeds. It represents a collective heritage and is central to many agroecology projects. Benin has now banned the sale of frozen chickens, known as “morgue chickens”, across its territory in order to promote the farming of native chicken breeds, i.e., “their” bicycle chickens. Will the government of Burkina Faso exercise its veto or monopoly rights against this policy? Even the AfCFTA protocol supports this approach.
Original Source: Grain

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Two dead as Siaya protests against gold mining firm turn tragic

Published

on

Ikolomani residents protesting against eviction plan to pave space for British mining company Shanta Gold on November 12, 2025. Two people died in similar protests in Gem, Siaya County.  Isaac Wale | Nation Media Group

Two people were shot dead on Monday in Gem–Ramula, Siaya County, after villagers staged a protest over an alleged eviction they linked to Shanta Gold Kenya Limited.

Area police boss Charles Wafula confirmed the incident, stating that the victims were among a group alleged to have attacked a police post after the officers moved in to disperse the demonstrators.

According to Mr Wafula, the demonstrators, angered by what they described as an illegal resettlement by the company, stormed the station during the protest, prompting officers to intervene.

“The individuals had organised a demonstration but they did not notify the police. Our officers moved in to contain the situation, but the group began attacking both officers and Ramula Police Post, damaging several items, including vehicles,” Mr Wafula said.

However, a local rights organisation has sharply contested the police account, portraying the killings as unlawful and unprovoked.

In a statement, the Community Initiative Action Group Kenya said the two victims identified as Henry Otieno and Jack Omenda were part of a peaceful protest against what they termed a forced eviction from their ancestral land.

“The community had gathered peacefully to demonstrate against Shanta Gold Limited’s attempt to relocate them without their consent,” said the lobby’s Executive Director Chris Owalla.

The group further alleged that police officers opened fire without warning following a confrontation with residents at Ramula Market.

“Witnesses state there was an exchange between the community and police after which officers opened fire, killing Henry and Jack on the spot,” Mr Owalla said.

The rights group also accused senior police officers including Mr Wafula and Charles Emodo of Directorate of Criminal Investigation, of disregarding a court order that had halted evictions and mining operations in the area.

According to Mr Owalla, the Environment and Land Court in Siaya had, on February 5, 2026, issued conservatory orders barring any involuntary resettlement of residents in Ramula and its environs, pending the hearing of a petition.

The organisation is now calling for investigations by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority and the the Director of Public Prosecutions, alongside an independent autopsy on the victims.

Fear of evictions

The unrest is rooted in long-standing tensions over planned gold mining operations by Shanta Gold in the region. The company is seeking to establish a large-scale extraction project – one that residents fear could uproot communities and erode livelihoods carefully built over generations.

Similar scenes of unrest were reported in November 2025 in Ikolomani, where locals protested against possible relocations linked to the same company.

Shanta Gold has previously signalled its intention to invest in a multi-billion-shilling project in western Kenya, targeting high-grade gold deposits expected to yield significant output over several years.

Source: nation.africa

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Tanzania: Commissions call for mass eviction of Indigenous Maasai from world-famous tourist destinations.

Published

on

Two presidential commissions have recommended the mass eviction of Maasai people from some of East Africa’s most iconic conservation areas and tourist destinations.

The commissions were established by Tanzania’s President Samia Suluhu Hassan following previous evictions of Maasai pastoralists from parts of the world-famous Serengeti ecosystem, and large-scale protests in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 2024.

Now, despite a global outcry at the earlier evictions, the two Commissions have:

  • Backed the previous evictions and called for them to continue, including in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Ngorongoro and neighboring Lake Natron.
  • Described the long-standing Maasai presence in the area as an “environmental pressure” that needs to be reduced.
  • Threatened local NGOs that support the Maasai, accusing them of “spreading misinformation or propaganda” because they “conflict with government interests.”
  • Called for the “relocation” of all “non-conservation activities” [in other words, Maasai occupancy of the land] outside the conservation areas.
  • Called for existing recognition of the Maasai people’s right to live in the Ngorongoro area to be removed.

An anonymous Maasai spokesperson said today: “We are blamed for environmental degradation while the unchecked expansion of tourism is ignored. Forced relocation, disguised as policy, has deprived our people of basic rights and dignity. We reject any continuation of these measures and condemn the Commission’s failure to reflect the voices, realities, and rights of our people.”

Still from a video showing the Maasai protesting the violent evictions from their ancestral lands, 2022.

The authorities maintain that these are “voluntary relocations.” However, the Maasai have overwhelmingly rejected being moved.

The Ngorongoro Conservation Area is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. When it was established, the ancestral right of the Maasai to live there with their cattle was explicitly acknowledged. But UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has backed the so-called “voluntary relocations”, and UNESCO endorses the “fortress conservation” model that underpins Tanzania’s approach.

Survival International Director Caroline Pearce said today, “These commissions were a sham, a gimmick designed to give Tanzania’s violent persecution of the Maasai a veneer of respectability. It was widely predicted that they’d back further evictions: the whole saga just confirms that colonial-style fortress conservation is alive and well in Tanzania today, and enthusiastically endorsed by UNESCO.

“These recommendations give the green light to more evictions, in Ngorongoro and beyond. And while the Maasai are robbed of their lands and livelihood, the government, tour operators and so-called conservationists will enrich themselves from a landscape emptied of its original owners.”

Source: survivalinternational.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Sham Presidential Commissions Rubber Stamp Tanzanian Government’s Efforts to Evict Indigenous Maasai from Ngorongoro Conservation Area

Published

on

  • March 12, 2026, Presidential commissions’ reports recommend dismantling longstanding Maasai rights in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) – rubber-stamping the Tanzanian government’s plans for widespread evictions to expand tourism.
  • President Hassan pursues a so-called “voluntary” relocation program, despite extensive evidence that communities are being forced to leave through the withdrawal of essential services and livelihood restrictions.
  • The government announced a crackdown on civil society groups critical of its plans, raising concerns of further repression of land defenders and NGOs speaking out against forced displacement.
  • Maasai communities remain steadfast in the defense of their land, livelihoods, and way of life, vowing to continue resistance against attempts to force them from their ancestral territories.

Oakland, CA – In reports submitted on March 12, 2026 to Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan, commissions tasked to assess land disputes in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) and review resettlement plans, dismissed rights of the Indigenous Maasai to their ancestral lands. They instead advance recommendations that further marginalize their rights in order to expand safari tourism.

“The commissions’ recommendations are based on outright lies about the environmental impacts of the Maasai, while completely ignoring the real damage caused by rapid tourism expansion,” said a Maasai elder. 1 “If these extremely biased and reckless recommendations are implemented, it will be the end of our people in Ngorongoro.”

Immediately after the reports were submitted, park rangers started harassment of residents in the grazing areas of Ndutu with the intent to force them to leave for tourism expansion. Three community members were reportedly beaten and arrested while others received notices to vacate.

Recommendations are a crafty attempt at changing 1959 legislation that created the NCA as a multiple land use area – explicitly enshrining the right of the Maasai to live and graze cattle in the area. The Maasai were promised that “should there be any conflict between the interests of the game [animals] and the human inhabitants, those of the latter must take precedence.”

The President has accepted the recommendations and stated she “will act on them” – a decision that will have a catastrophic impact on Maasai communities. The government has signaled its intention to drastically reduce Maasai presence in the NCA and relocate what it calls “non-conservation activities” outside the area. Towards this goal, the President has indicated an expansion of the “voluntary” relocation program.

For years, the Oakland Institute has shattered government myths about “voluntary” resettlement –exposing serious flaws with relocation plans that are being forced upon communities. To pressure residents to leave, the government has stopped basic medical, education, and water services while restricting access to grazing land for pastoralists. Massive mobilizations by the Maasai against this forced resettlement expose the government’s lie that people are leaving willingly.

Beyond the NCA, the commissions also recommend further restrictions on livelihoods, threatening the future eviction of Maasai communities living near Lake Natron and Loliondo. “These sham findings are the latest attempt by the government to rapidly expand its brutal fortress conservation model across the country, threatening hundreds of thousands of Indigenous lives in blind pursuit of tourism dollars that have failed to trickle down to improve the lives of the poor Tanzanians and the local communities,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

In another alarming development, the government is attempting to silence local NGOs by reviewing their registration status and monitoring their activities to force them to operate “in alignment with national conservation objectives.” The move reflects the regime’s ongoing persecution of civil society and broader crackdown on dissent, carried out through state violence and arbitrary detention. Major opposition parties remain outlawed in Tanzania, while government critics have routinely disappeared. Following the rigged October 2025 national elections, the government violently suppressed pro-democracy protests and state security forces killed thousands of civilians.

As previously warned by the Oakland Institute, both commissions lacked independence given they were dominated by government personnel and had very limited Maasai representation. The commissions’ reports – which have not been made public – were orally presented to the government nearly one year after they were due to provide findings.

“These commissions have no credibility. From the start, they were tasked with rubber stamping the government’s plans to evict the Indigenous Maasai so their land can be a safari and hunting playground for the rich foreign tourists. One cannot be fooled by their “findings” and international solidarity must be mobilized to uphold Maasai’s rights to their ancestral land,” warned Mittal.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter