By Antoine Lenique

From the 18th to 20th August, in Indonesia, AFSA National Committee member Antoine joined more than 30 representatives from social movements and civil society organisations representing peasants in 10 countries across South East Asia and Sri Lanka. Serikat Petani Indonesia (SPI), the largest anti-neoliberal peasant organisation in the country since its formation in 1998, a long time member of La Via Campesina (LVC), hosted the consultation at their Education Center in Bogor, West Java. Surrounded by rows of kang kong, okra, banana trees and a daily chorus of Indonesian toads, the farm is an agroecology training school and a nurturing meeting place for the local peasant movement.

Before delving into the details of the regional consultation process, AFSA would like to acknowledge the critical role of La Via Campesina, international rural movements and communities in establishing the UNDROP since the first official meeting in 2001. This long struggle lasted more than 17 years until its adoption by the United Nations General Assembly, and is far from ending with its ratification or implementation by signatory countries. 

Global issues like land grabbing and financialisation, corporate concentration, criminalisation and impoverishment of rural and indigenous communities, and environmental destruction have long lasting catastrophic implications.These are direct consequences of neoliberal politico-economic systems, often characterised by market and corporate-driven approaches and uneven power dynamics, while being endorsed by government policies and regulations. Ignoring the urgency of a paradigm shift or focusing on false solutions is to be complicit in worsening the polycrisis and widening the metabolic rift, pushing our societies towards a point of no return.

Why the UNDROP?

The United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas also known as UNDROP is a UN declaration of human rights that internationally recognises peasants’ rights and struggles, as well as their special relationship with mother earth. As all UN human rights declarations, UNDROP is a non-binding international legal instrument voted by United Nations member states and formally adopted by the United Nations general assembly. However, its content is often a reflection of legally binding international human rights obligations. In this case, and for the first time, the realities and needs of peasants and rural communities are addressed in the form of human rights and obligations. UNDROP is also important because it was written by peasants for peasants, acknowledging their relationship to the land and a shared oppression by transnational companies and agribusiness.

The UNDROP has an important role to play in this struggle, it establishes jurisprudence and an international legal outlook to guide legislation and public policies at all institutional levels to protect rural workers, family farming and peasants’ rights to land, seeds, biodiversity and other collective rights anchored in Food Sovereignty. In this regard, the UNDROP provides not only a recognition of peasants’ and rural workers’ rights and contributions, but it also serves as a roadmap for States, the UN, business enterprises, and other stakeholders to take concrete actions. 

Most importantly, the UNDROP can also be used as a political tool, as it recognises peasants and people in rural areas as political subjects and essential actors in overcoming the crises. It can protect and assist peasants’ communities through community organising, documenting rights violations, drafting legislation and public policies and claiming rights. Likewise, UNDROP’s articles might help demonstrate how food sovereignty and the protection of peasant and agroecology-based approaches are fundamental to achieve socially and ecologically just food systems. 

For instance, Article 1 defines a peasant as someone who engages in small-scale agriculture and relies on non-monetised labour, dependency and attachment to the land. Some articles underline the international community’s commitment to protect, fulfil and respect peasants human rights, such as the rights to access effective and non-discriminatory justice (articles 3, 5, 12), land (17), seeds (19), biodiversity (20), water (21) and other natural resources (5). The rights to seek, receive, develop and impart information about processing, marketing and distributing of their products are outlined in articles 10, 11, and 16. Rights to food, Food Sovereignty and the right to be free from hunger (15), the collective right to a healthy environment (14 and 18), the right to enjoy culture and pursue culture development freely  (6, 8 , 26), the rights of peasant women and other women working in rural areas (4), the general obligations of states (2) and responsibility of UN agencies and other intergovernmental organisations (27) are also outlined in the UNDROP.

The Consultation

With scorching 33°C days and humidity above 85%, 11 LVC member organisations came together to reflect on the progress made since the adoption of the UNDROP on December 17, 2018. The regional consultation brought together farmers and LVC organisations representing peasants from Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Philippines, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, South Korea, Japan, and Australia to work towards UNDROP implementation and further enumeration of rights for peasants and rural communities.

Gathering at one of the SPI headquarters carried a symbolic message, as it was one of the leading organisations behind the first meeting in the 1990s that led to the proposal and ratification of UNDROP, back when it was called the Federation of Indonesian Peasant Unions (FSPI). It serves as a reminder that it is possible to build international law from the ground up.

(Bang)Henry Saragih, peasant, union leader, former General Coordinator of La Via Campesina, originator of the idea behind the UNDROP and the Chairman of Serikat Petani Indonesia (SPI), presenting the process behind the adoption of UNDROP, from the first formal meeting in 2001 until its adoption in 2018.

After the mistica and a general meet and greet, Henry Thomas Simarmata, SPI facilitator to the LVC’s International Coordination Committee, presents the agenda for what the three following days will look like and what is expected from present members. At the end of the consultation, the following points were covered:

1. Each member organisation submits a brief summary of each region’s situation through the lens of UNDROP;
2. A common understanding of roles and functions of Working Groups and their mechanisms by all present members;
3. The development of an advocacy report to be sent to the WG before the 16th of October 2024, and a strategic plan to apply and implement the UNDROP rights at a domestic level.
4. Further enumeration of rights and monitoring standards.

Sharing struggles

Under the solid bamboo roofing structure of the SPI’s “Aula Tani” or Farmer’s Hall, where meetings were held, one easily ruminates about the significance of these encounters when listening to the depth of our comrades’ struggles. Amid the various challenges presented, a common thread emerges: land grabbing and neoliberal policies such as the privatisation of seed distribution and water resources. 

In Thailand, represented by the Assembly of the Poor (AOP) and the Northern Peasant Federation (NPF), the push for carbon credit schemes and forest conservation policies is having a profound impact on small landholders and rural communities. While presented as a solution to climate change, these initiatives are often leading to land grabbing and the displacement of local populations. The Thai government’s ambitious plans to increase green areas to 55% of the country and generate carbon credits from forests are primarily benefiting large corporations, particularly those in polluting industries like fossil fuels and petrochemicals. As a result, farmers and first peoples are losing access to traditional fishing grounds due to tourism and conservation policies, while also facing increased human-wildlife conflicts as elephants and monkeys damage crop fields. The AOP shared the example of how imported Blackchin Tilapia leaked out of a research centre in the Samut Songkhram district and spread so fast that it became an invasive species damaging native fish populations and the communities depending on them. 

Sri Lanka has been grappling with financial insolvency for the past three years, following the government’s abrupt decision to transition the entire agricultural sector to organic practices without a systematic program to promote organic agriculture among farmers. This drastic shift, which has had far-reaching consequences, was initially prompted by the country’s inability to afford synthetic agricultural imports. In the wake of this economic crisis, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has intervened, as it usually does, shaping government policies through the dual lenses of debt restructuring and neoliberal economic principles, such as the privatisation of seed storage and distribution systems, which were once owned and managed by the state. Additionally, the government’s attempts to change seed-related laws to favour private companies’ control over seed patents further threaten farmers’ autonomy, while large-scale projects like dams are impacting biodiversity and causing floods that affect local populations. According to Chinthaka, human rights activist and MONLAR’s moderator, the Sri Lankan government tends to ignore peasant struggles while enabling further control of the agricultural inputs industry by national conglomerates and transnational agrochemical and seed corporations, such as Hayleys PLC group, Opex Holding, and ADVANTA (UAE).

From the Philippines, PARAGOS shares violent stories of oppression where peasants and indigenous populations face a multifaceted crisis that threatens their livelihoods, cultures, and very existence. Land grabbing for carbon credit schemes and development projects is displacing communities, while conservation policies and tourism initiatives are restricting access to ancestral lands and traditional resources. The government’s preference for large-scale agribusiness over small-scale farming endangers food sovereignty, and extractive industries are causing severe environmental degradation. Adding to these challenges, the state’s militarisation of rural areas and criminalisation of activism have led to harassment, arrests, and even extrajudicial killings of rights defenders. 

Despite facing significant obstacles, including the criminalisation of activists and limited support from broader social movements, these organisations remain undeterred. Their unwavering commitment to protecting the rights and livelihoods of peasant and indigenous communities is not just reshaping the agricultural landscape of Southeast Asia – it’s offering a blueprint for global resistance against exploitative practices and a path towards a more just and agroecology based food system.

Fighting for the peasant way

In fact, this powerful grassroots movement is fiercely standing up to combat the challenges faced by rural and indigenous communities across South East Asia. In the face of neoliberal policies and “carbon colonialism“ that threaten local livelihoods and environments, organisations like La Via Campesina (LVC) are leading the charge for the repeasantisation of their territories.

From Thailand to the Philippines, Indonesia to Cambodia, these groups are united in their mission to protect farmers’ rights, promote food sovereignty and agroecological principles, and resist the exploitation of their lands. The Assembly of the Poor (AOP) in Thailand, MONLAR in Sri Lanka, and PARAGOS in the Philippines are at the forefront, advocating for comprehensive land reform, land settlement cooperatives and the incorporation of UNDROP principles into national laws. They are not just fighting against the lackeys of neoliberal capitalism; they are proposing and implementing alternative models that prioritise emancipatory principles and environmental justice.

The backbone of this movement is education and cooperation. The SPI is empowering its members through training sessions on UNDROP, while Farmer for Nature Net in Cambodia and Panggau in Malaysia are fostering cooperativism and farmer empowerment. These efforts are creating a network of informed, empowered communities ready to stand up for their rights and their lands.

Back at the SPI’s Aula Tani, as these stories of oppression, criminalisation, and constant life-threatening situations were shared, the people’s courage was felt across the room, inspiring the fight for an agroecological future. In this vision, food sovereignty is a non-negotiable foundational pillar of our food systems, with collectives of peasants at the centre, feeding us all.

AFSA’s pledge

Throughout the consultation process and after regional reporting was done, member organisations broke up into groups to work on the plan for advocacy to share with the Working Group (WG). This participatory method immediately allowed organisations to build on the knowledge of more experienced members, identify if capacity building was needed, share learnings from case-specific struggles and build coalitions. After deliberations about which UNDROP rights and cases to focus on, in each group, a representative was chosen and findings were communicated online to WG Chair, Genevieve Savigny. 

Since AFSA represents the only LVC country member in the region that voted against UNDROP, it was grouped with Nouminren and the Korean Women Peasant’s Association (KWPA), as both the Japanese and the South Korean governments abstained.

During the consultation, recognising that AFSA represents a country from the minority world which signed against the UNDROP, Antoine shared some of the challenges we are facing in Australia today, such as:

• Corporatisation of the food system
• Financialisation and consolidation of farmland
• Food safety regulation, regulatory and processing infrastructure barriers common to small-scale farmers unadapted to smallholder farming
• A deeply neoliberal high-exporting country where the average farm size is 4,331 hectares,
• Farmers unwillingness or inability to collectivise due to a diverse range of factors, such as low small scale farmer density and a historically highly colonialist and competitive mindset
• Food prices inflation exacerbated by the retail supermarket duopoly

AFSA, KWPA and Nouminren agreed to focus on Article 16 – Right to decent income and livelihood and the means of production. Indeed, in Australia, small-scale farmers are usually on the lower end of the wage scale and struggle to sustain a decent living by only working on their farm. Furthermore, the grocery retail market concentration in Australia is extreme, with Coles and Woolworths controlling 66 percent of the grocery retail market – more than all the rest of the retailers combined. This highly concentrated ‘duopoly’ distribution model strongly disadvantages producers, especially small-scale farmers, as powerful retailers are able to unilaterally set the terms of contracts and increase their own profit margins at the expense of suppliers. In addition to the stronghold retailers have over Australian food sales, processors can retain as much as 70 percent of the average food dollar, with increasing vertical integration across sectors of agriculture that have been intensifying for decades (e.g. dairy, pigs, and poultry). This model leads to unbalanced power dynamics over food prices, price gouging, increased food waste, weak and inflexible long supply chains, and an alienated food culture where most consumers are disconnected from their food and its producers.

AFSA pointed out that it supports the establishment of small-scale farming income support and price subsidisation of small-scale agroecological produce. These initiatives would ensure that existing and aspiring small to medium-scale farmers can lead dignified lives. Additionally, these measures would facilitate a faster transition towards agroecology-oriented farming in Australia.

Particularly relevant to implementation, in paragraph 2, in order to avoid potential or further debt accumulation in peasant communities, further dependence on supply chain middlemen or other forms or supply chain corporate control, AFSA also suggested to empower or at least develop mechanisms that support these communities to collectively own the means of production, transportation, processing and other forms of necessary infrastructure helping agroecology oriented farmers access to markets.

AFSA therefore emphasised the importance of supporting food value chain platforms, incubators and aggregation mechanisms in which public bodies invest and reward sustainable food producers and the production of public goods. 

• Funding the development of community-led local and regional processing hubs and distribution channels that provide greater processing and handling capacities for fresh products from small and medium-sized farmers adopting agroecological approaches and improve their access to local food markets;
• Providing incentives for First Peoples, young farmers and food producers, women and community-led enterprises that capture and retain value locally, recognizing and addressing their specific constraints and needs; and
• Adapting support to encourage local food producers, food enterprises and communities to build recycling systems by supporting the reuse of animal waste, crop residue and food processing waste in forms such as animal feed, compost, bio gas and mulch to reduce dependence

Referring to Articles 17 (Right to land) and 19 (Right to seeds), Antoine mentioned several initiatives AFSA is working on at the ground level, such as the exploration of alternative land use, land access, and land ownership models at different scales (CSA, FOOPL, Agrarian Trust) while ensuring First Peoples’ sovereignty remains a primary consideration at all times. Regarding Article 19, Antoine also emphasised a lack of recognition of the right to seeds in Australia and how AFSA advocates for seed saving and seed swaps between farmers and organisations, supports systems that use native seeds, landrace varieties, and breeds, and promotes the idea that seed sovereignty means control, knowledge, and traditional practices around seeds should remain in the hands of communities

Finally, AFSA briefly advocated for the necessity to develop an equitable framework to assess technological innovations, asking questions such as:

• Who decided we needed the technology?
• Who designed it and for whom?
• Who profits from the technology and what practices did it alter or displace?
• Who has access to the technology and who doesn’t?
• Who gathered the raw materials needed to build it, under what conditions, and to what benefit for them and their families?
• What was the ecological impact of gathering the parts to build the technology?
• Who owns the intellectual property rights?

While most members at the LVC consultation might be focusing on the advocacy report and implementation processes, AFSA’s homework will be prioritising campaigns for the Australian Government to acknowledge and sign the Declaration and use the UNDROP’s definition of “peasant” in our communications, advocacy papers and other events to make sure that small to medium scale Australian farmers can identify as peasants with dignity. 

Importantly, Henry suggested broadly emphasising in our communications that UNDROP is not only for indigenous peoples or farmers. These rights are applicable to family farms and rural workers as well, benefiting all small to medium-scale farming communities. Henry also recommended that AFSA observe best practices of successful lobbying around the world, such as the Swiss case, which is the only country from the minority world to have signed the Declaration. UNDROP’s implementation will be the subject of the second blog post in this series.