Mr Godfrey Mwila, the Deputy Director – Technical Services, at the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute, Republic of Zambia, discusses his involvement in the farmers’ rights negotiations, the farmers rights provisions in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA/Treaty) as well as the current farmers’ rights landscape in Zambia and Africa.
Flora IP (FI): How did you get involved in the farmers’ rights discourse?
Godfrey Mwila (GM): I got involved in the farmers’ rights discourse right from the onset – during the negotiations for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Treaty), which was adopted in 2001. I was part of the African Group that took part in the negotiations for the Treaty. It was the African Group, the Latin American Group, and to some extent, the Asian Group that brought farmers’ rights to the table for negotiations.
We had to fight hard. We are glad that we managed to get farmers’ rights (Article 9) included in the Treaty. It was a challenging task.
We wanted many provisions included as farmers’ rights, but there was a lot of resistance, generally from the United States, Canada, Australia and some European countries. In the end, we got some sympathy from European countries, especially Scandinavian countries. This position is still reflected to date, as some of the support to introduce mechanisms for the implementation of farmers’ rights (as explored in the First and Second meeting of the Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Group on Famers’ Rights) comes from countries like Norway.
FI: What are farmers’ rights as per provisions of Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture?
GM: The genesis of farmers’ rights is the recognition of the contributions that farmers’ have made to the development and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and also, the recognition of the contributions that farmers need to continue making both now and in the future. Those contributions are the anchor of farmers’ rights, and as such, there was a need to recognise and reward those contributions.
However, to integrate farmers’ rights into the formal sector, we would need to amend the current seed laws; for example, the release and description of what a ‘variety’ is, so that they also encompasses farmers’ varieties, which, to a large extent, do not conform to the current uniformity condition. Accordingly, seed laws have to be designed to be flexible and broad enough to encompass farmers’ varieties.
We need to recognise farmers as breeders, because they are breeders in their own right!
FI: How can African countries realise farmers’ rights?
GM: So far, realising farmers’ rights in Africa has been difficult. Farmers’ rights have not permeated at the national levels to policymakers and other stakeholders, including the farmers. The first thing we need to do is to disseminate knowledge about farmers’ rights, especially to the farmers and to locally contextualise what farmers’ rights mean in practical terms.
How can we relate farmers’ rights to existing realities? How can farmers’ demand for these rights?
Governments tend to act on public demands. However, what we currently have is technocrats and civil society activists demanding farmers’ rights. We have failed to bring farmers to the same level of understanding so that they can articulate these issues and communicate them to policymakers. A key step towards the realisation of farmers’ rights is the creation of awareness about its importance and to relate the farmers’ rights provisions as set out in the Treaty to the African countries’ contexts.
FI: Can you discuss the current farmers’ rights landscape in Africa?
GM: Several countries have over time attempted to introduce legal, administrative and policy measures to realise farmers’ rights, but these have been unsuccessful. I cannot think of examples of African countries that have successfully introduced measures for the realisation of farmers’ rights. The main difficulty that African countries have faced is the conflict between the formal and informal sectors. The interest groups in the commercial seed industries have promoted the formal seed systems: seed regulations, seed certifications and intellectual property rights. They have also contributed to derailing the efforts to implement farmers’ rights provisions.
In Zambia, for example, I was actively involved in promoting farmers’ rights due to my involvement with the Treaty negotiations. We pushed for a sui generis system that provided both breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights (following India’s example), we also embarked on efforts to design the relevant legal documents. However, when international agencies such as the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) heard about our attempts, they influenced the key government agencies to disrupt and stop the process. The international agencies advised the government to separate breeders’ rights from farmers’ rights. When this was achieved, farmers’ rights was shelved, while the breeders’ rights was actualised. Breeders’ rights have since been enacted into law: The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act 2007. Farmers’ rights have been ignored. Civil society activists such as Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB) are gradually reviving farmers’ rights discussions and pushing for its realisation in Zambia.
FI: What changes to small-scale farmers interests would you want to see at the international, regional and national levels?
GM: The overall goal of the Treaty is to improve the livelihoods of small-scale farmers and to get them involved in decision making on matters that affect them, particularly the management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Farmers should have a wider choice of seed sources, including their varieties, as this can contribute to improving resilience to the effects of climate change. Farmers are also entitled to economic benefits for the conservation and development of their varieties. Overall, I would like to see improvements in small-scale farmers’ livelihoods.
