Connect with us

NGO WORK

What future for seeds under the African Free Trade Area?

Published

3 years ago

on

Angelique Ipanga a teacher and also farmer in a manioc field, Lukolela, Democratic Republic of Congo.
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

Related posts:

Pan African countries urged not to infringe on female human rights African governments are giving in to corporate pressure and undermining local seed systems – report African bishops demand end to ‘land grabs’ by private companies Finnfund invests US$15m in African agri supply chain business ETG African Faith Communities Tell Gates Foundation, “Big Farming is No Solution for Africa

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

UN Experts Put Tanzanian Government on Notice – “Ensure Transparency and Respect for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Ngorongoro”

Published

2 weeks ago

on

April 23, 2026

By

April 17, 2026 press release from the offices of eight UN Special Rapporteurs1 calls for the Tanzanian government to immediately publish the findings of two presidential commissions amid growing concerns over its eviction plans.
The communication echoes the Oakland Institute’s warning that these sham Presidential Commissions are being used to rubber-stamp eviction plans without the consent of the Indigenous community.
The strongly-worded communication from the UN Special Rapporteurs states that “these reports are of profound public interest and must be made available to the public without delay…Decisions affecting tens of thousands of Indigenous Peoples cannot be taken behind closed doors.” The experts furthermore urge “the Government to halt any actions that could lead to forced displacement, and engage in meaningful dialogue with affected communities,” while issuing a clear reminder that “Indigenous Peoples have a right to remain on their traditional lands if they so choose…Conservation efforts must not come at the expense of human rights.”
Impacted Maasai communities welcome this intervention from the UN Special Rapporteurs and reaffirm their commitment to defend their rights to remain on their ancestral lands.
To learn more about the struggle against Fortress Conservation, watch the interview: The Dark Side of “Conservation”
On Fox 5 DC Weekend Live, Julie Donaldson interviews Andy Currier, Oakland Institute’s Policy Analyst. Watch the discussion on fortress conservation and the human cost of climate solutions that displace Indigenous communities who best protect our biodiversity.
Watch the video

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Related posts:

The Oakland Institute Calls on the Tanzanian Presidential Land Commissions to Respect & Ensure Rights of Maasai Living in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Sham Presidential Commissions Rubber Stamp Tanzanian Government’s Efforts to Evict Indigenous Maasai from Ngorongoro Conservation Area Tanzanian Government’s Sustained Campaign Against the Maasai in Loliondo and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area URGENT ALERT: Tanzanian Government on a Rampage Against Indigenous People Call to Sever Ties with Tanzanian Government Over Latest Human Rights Abuses Against the Maasai
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Two dead as Siaya protests against gold mining firm turn tragic

Published

1 month ago

on

April 7, 2026

By

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

Related posts:

State Power: Army Used Expired Mining license to Forcefully Evict 120,000 Families Off Gold-Rich Land Amidst Failed US Sanctions, the Indigenous Pay the Price for Nicaragua’s Gold Rush DR Congo oil palm company bankrolled by development banks unleashes wave of violence against villagers after peaceful protests Artisanal gold miners defy government on mercury use Njuba’s Gold Mine victims: A violent Eviction that Opened Wounds That May Never Heal Forever
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

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

Published

2 months ago

on

March 19, 2026

By

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

Related posts:

Sham Presidential Commissions Rubber Stamp Tanzanian Government’s Efforts to Evict Indigenous Maasai from Ngorongoro Conservation Area The Oakland Institute Calls on the Tanzanian Presidential Land Commissions to Respect & Ensure Rights of Maasai Living in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Call to Sever Ties with Tanzanian Government Over Latest Human Rights Abuses Against the Maasai Worldwide Condemnation Over Violence against the Maasai by Tanzania Security Forces US Luxury Safari Operator Tightens Stranglehold Over Maasai Land in Tanzania
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter