The Right to Seeds and Legal Mobilization for the Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali

Priscilla Claeys

This article discusses the right to seeds and legal mobilization for the protection of peasant seed systems in Mali. It centres on the ongoing 'Seed, Norms and Peasants' process ('Semences, Normes et Paysans', SNP), the goal of which is to achieve the recognition of peasant seed systems in the law. Through the lens of human rights practice, the article explores how peasant organizations and allied NGOs have: a) converged around a shared political agenda despite initial disagreement on the role of certified seeds; b) framed the right to seeds as a collective right, grounded in customary regimes for the governance of land and natural resources; and c) engaged in dialogue with the state to push for legal reform. It further discusses processes of legal transfers and seed aid that have ushered the development of a commercial seed sector in Mali and locates peasant seed systems within the political economy of seeds in the country.

Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2020, 1–22 doi: 10.1093/jhuman/huaa039 Article The Right to Seeds and Legal Mobilization for the Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali Mohamed Coulibaly, Priscilla Claeys, and Anne Berson* Abstract This article discusses the right to seeds and legal mobilization for the protection of peasant seed systems in Mali. It centres on the ongoing ‘Seed, Norms and Peasants’ process (‘Semences, Normes et Paysans’, SNP), the goal of which is to achieve the recognition of peasant seed systems in the law. Through the lens of human rights practice, the article explores how peasant organizations and allied NGOs have: a) converged around a shared political agenda despite initial disagreement on the role of certified seeds; b) framed the right to seeds as a collective right, grounded in customary regimes for the governance of land and natural resources; and c) engaged in dialogue with the state to push for legal reform. It further discusses processes of legal transfers and seed aid that have ushered the development of a commercial seed sector in Mali and locates peasant seed systems within the political economy of seeds in the country. Keywords: agroecology; food sovereignty; legal mobilization; farmers’ rights; right to seeds; rights of peasants Introduction In the last decade, seeds have moved from representing a core element of the right to food (UN General Assembly 2009) to being recognized as a standalone human right in the recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) (UN General Assembly 2018). For a long time, farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds were mostly considered from the perspective of biodiversity protection and environmental law, although an abundance of human rights * Mohamed Coulibaly is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Legal and Political Sciences (USJP) of Bamako, Mali. Priscilla Claeys is Associate Professor at the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR), Coventry University, UK. Anne Berson is Coordinator of the West Africa programmes of BEDE (Biodiversité, Échanges et Diffusion d’Expériences). C The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. V For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 Article 2 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. 1 Seed enclosures designate the variety of processes that gradually turn common genetic heritage into private property, and public goods into private benefits. Seed enclosures take a multiplicity of forms but are the result of the combined effects of crop biotechnology and intellectual property rights (Montenegro de Wit 2017: 172). One of the implications of seed enclosures for farmers is the prohibition on saving, using or selling their seeds. 2 Commons can be defined as social or natural resources not owned by anyone, but over which a community has shared and equal rights (Montenegro de Wit 2019: 2, citing Thompson 1975). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 norms address peasants’ relationship to seeds and traditional knowledge (Morten Haugen 2020). With the expansion of intellectual property rights regimes, and the privatization and commercialization of seeds leading to seed enclosures,1 seeds have increasingly become a human rights issue (Shashikant and Meienberg 2015; Christinck and Walløe Tvedt 2015). Over the last decades, agrarian activists, NGOs and scholars from around the world have engaged in legal activism around seeds, with a view to protecting farmers’ rights and advancing ‘seed commons’ and ‘seed sovereignty’ (Peschard and Randeria 2020). The repertoires of action deployed by these actors are highly context-specific. While the patterns of appropriation are quite similar, seed activism takes a variety of forms reflecting the diversity of farmers’ seed networks (Coomes et al. 2015), modes of enclosures and legal frameworks governing seeds. Legal mobilizations—the process by which actors invoke legal norms, discourse, or symbols to influence policy or behaviour (Claeys and Peschard 2020)— involve judicial actions, peoples’ tribunals, voluntary reaping (Doherty and Hayes 2014), establishing open-source seed systems or seed commons (Kloppenburg 2014; Montenegro de Wit 2019), and transnational peasant activism to create new human rights (Claeys 2015). These add to other forms of activism that fall outside the legal realm strictly speaking, such as establishing seed banks (Garzón and Guitiérrez Escobar 2019) or peasant seed networks (Demeulenaere 2014). A number of key but under-explored questions are emerging from the literature on seed activism. What is the substantive content of the (individual and collective) right to seeds? What are the most efficient ways to protect seed commons?2 How do grass-roots actors articulate commons and rights-based approaches and how do they address tensions between the two? This article discusses the right to seeds and legal mobilization for peasant seed systems in Mali. It does not explore how the human right to seeds, as a new international human rights norm, is spreading from the global to the national level and is vernacularized in the local context (Merry 2006). Through a human rights practice lens, it shifts the focus to how agrarian activists have framed the right to seeds, and pushed for legal reform (Stammers 2009). Why have these activists used human rights and how has this shaped their struggle? What have been some of the dilemmas and tensions at the heart of that enterprise? What are some of the lessons learned for human rights practitioners and seed activists around the globe? (Dudai 2019). Our analysis centres on the ongoing ‘Seed, Norms and Peasants’ process (Semences, Normes et Paysans, SNP), the goal of which is to achieve the recognition of peasant seed systems in the law. The SNP process is a joint effort of the West African Peasants’ Seeds Committee (Comité Ouest-Africain des Semences Paysannes, COASP/Mali) and the two major peasant organizations in Mali: the National Coordination of Peasant Organizations (Coordination Nationale des Organisations Paysannes, CNOP) and the Association of Professional Peasant Organizations (Association des Organisations Professionnelles Paysannes, AOPP). The process has benefited from the technical support and legal expertise The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 3 3 Convergence spaces offer a conceptual framework with which to interpret the operational and spatial dynamics, strategies, practices and governance arrangements of ‘place-based movements and groups involved in extending their reach’ (Routledge 2017). 4 The concept builds on Tarrow’s ‘political opportunity structures’ (Tarrow 1998) but helps provide a better understanding of the role of legal strategies in protest, that is, of strategies that engage with the law or seek to denounce or transform it through movement mobilization. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 of two organizations: the Bamako-based Institute for the Promotion of Alternatives in Development (Institut pour la Promotion des Alternatives en Développement, IRPAD) and the French NGO Biodiversity, Exchange and Diffusion of Experiences (Biodiversité, Échanges et Diffusion d’Expériences, BEDE). It has received financial support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the Aid and Development Agency of Luxembourg (LuxDev), the German NGO Misereor, and the French NGO CCFD–Terre Solidaire. While seed sovereignty movements around the globe are advancing a discourse of repossession, seeking to reclaim that which has been appropriated and privatized (Montenegro de Wit 2019), seed activism in Mali is in its early stages. Seed enclosures have yet to happen, and to our knowledge no one has ever been criminalized for selling uncertified seeds and using seed protected by the plant variety protection (PVP) system (M. Coulibaly, Brac de la Perrière, and Shashikant 2019). The contribution of this article is threefold. First, we look at the SNP process as a ‘convergence space’3 (Routledge 2017) and explore how peasant organizations have developed a shared agenda around seeds. Within convergence spaces, actors articulate collective visions or organizational principles which serve as the ‘common ground’ that is required for a politics of mutual solidarity (Cumbers et al. 2008: 193). We document one of the key obstacles to convergence, that is, the position of peasant organizations with regard to certified seeds and their contested relation to food sovereignty and peasant autonomy. Second, we explore how actors in the SNP process have engaged with human rights (and to a lesser extent the commons) to frame their struggle. Framing—the production of ‘meaning’ for participants and their opponents—is one of the main activities of social movements (Benford and Snow 2000). We trace the ideas, norms and experiences that have shaped the right to seeds in Mali, from grass-roots engagement with peasants and exchanges within regional and international food sovereignty networks, to international frameworks governing seeds and customary regimes regulating access to land in the African context. We also show that the SNP approach places seeds in a commons narrative but endorses a rights-based approach to defending peasant seeds, in contrast with other commons-based approaches such as the Open-Source Seed Initiative (OSSI). Third, we discuss how peasant organizations have seized the ‘legal opportunity’—the opening of institutional spaces allowing for legal change4 (Doherty and Hayes 2014)— created by the ongoing revision of the seed policy. We focus on the establishment of a multi-actor consultative framework and show that the SNP approach relies heavily on dialogue with the state, unlike more confrontational approaches to rights-claiming (Mitlin and Patel 2005). In so doing, we contribute to a growing body of literature that examines efforts by various actors in the global food sovereignty movement to make seed laws and policies more responsive to peasants’ rights (Felicien et al. 2018). This article is informed by the active involvement of the first and third co-authors in the SNP process since its inception in January 2016. The roles both of them have played, as 4 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. The political economy of seeds in Mali After a military dictatorship was overthrown in 1991, a multiparty democracy was established in Mali in 1992, including a decentralization reform aimed at transferring responsibility over resources onto local authorities (Sidibé et al. 2018). Over the same period, Mali has supported neoliberal restructuring and received considerable amounts of foreign aid but remained near the bottom of the Human Development Index. About 70 per cent of the country’s 18.6 million people base their livelihoods on agriculture (Ba and Bøås 2017). The farming system includes cotton as the main cash crop, alongside essential food crops, herding cattle, sheep, goats and fishing. Food security relies on six crops, which cover about one-third of arable land in Mali: pearl millet, sorghum, maize, rice, niébé, and cassava (manioc) (Christinck et al. 2018 citing FAOSTAT data for 2010–2014; Waithaka et al. 2019). To understand the seed landscape in Mali (for an overview, see Table 1, compiled by the authors), five important considerations need to be made upfront. First, the state and its agencies play an important role in the research, production, certification, and control of seeds in Mali. Seed is considered a major driver of increased production and state efforts have been geared towards identifying, promoting, and facilitating access to high quality seeds and enhanced varieties (Sidibé et al. 2018). Two public research bodies, the Institute of Rural Economy (Institut d’Économie Rurale, IER) and the Rural Polytechnical Institute (Institut Polytechnique Rural, IPR) are responsible for seed selection and varietal innovation. They develop seed varieties and produce foundation seeds, and operate under the guidance of the National Directorate of Agriculture (Direction Nationale de l’Agriculture, DNA) which assesses national seed needs every year through the national seed service (Service Semencier National, SSN). These national research bodies are supported by various CGIAR5 and other international research and innovation centres, notably from France, that are present in Mali through international cooperation in agricultural research. Support is mostly provided in the form of shared genetic material, human resources and infrastructure (Waithaka et al. 2019). Since the independence of Mali in 1960, public research 5 CGIAR is a global network of research centres working on emerging development issues. For more information, see https://www.cgiar.org. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 legal and technical experts, but also as facilitators, include: developing the methodology and key steps of the process; conducting the legal analysis; capacitating peasant organizations to define a shared agenda and engage with state actors; and organizing consultations with state actors and other relevant actors. Regular discussions with the second author since 2018 have enabled a critical analysis of the SNP process and prompted reflections on how it relates to other forms of legal mobilization around seeds. The article is structured as follows. We start with some background on the seed landscape in Mali, where we show how legal transfers and seed aid are paving the way for a business seed sector. This sets the stage for presenting the main actors of the SNP process, and how they converged around a shared agenda to defend peasants’ collective rights to seeds. We continue with a more conceptual discussion that looks at how they have engaged with human rights to protect peasant seed systems. We then look at their engagement with state actors. In the conclusion, we assess progress made, identify future challenges and draw some lessons learned. The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 5 Table 1. The seed systems in Mali Elements of the seed system Official seed system Peasant seed systems Formal/certified/commercial • Public entities (IER, IPR, DNA, SSN) • International research institutes • Private seed companies (ASSEMA) • Peasant cooperatives and organizations • Support NGOs • International aid actors Informal/traditional/local • Peasants and peasant organisations (CNOP, AOPP, COASP) • Rural communities • Public entities • Support NGOs Objective/vision • Ensure quality seed production for • Peasant autonomy and food security and cash crops. • Liberalization of seed production • Development of a seed market and a seed industry • Ensure free movement of seeds across borders (15 ECOWAS countries) Key instruments for system operationality • National seed committee (CNS) • Crop varieties homologation/ap- • • • • Regulatory framework proval and registration (through national and regional Catalogue and DUS criteria) Seed certification, dedicated fields and scientific norms for seed production Registration and licensing for seed producers and marketers Quality control PVP allowed on new varieties agroecology • Conservation and enhancement of crop diversity (heterogeneous seed systems) • Peasant seeds as basis of resilient food systems • Seed sovereignty and autonomous production of enhanced varieties • Farmer seed networks for distribu- • • • • • tion/circulation (both monetary and non-monetary) Voluntary registries Collective rules based on customs, traditions and practices regulating access Solidarity among actors Participatory guarantee systems Collective rights to seeds • National: 2010 Seed law and • National: 2010 Seed law and its implementing measures; 2008 Biosafety Law and implementing measures • Regional: ECOWAS Seed Regulations of 2008 (Marketing); OAPI 1999 Bangui Agreement (PVP) • International: UPOV 1991; TRIPS 1994; CBD Convention 1992; FAO Seed Treaty 2002; UNDROP 2018 implementing measures: Recognition of traditional varieties and their exclusion from the scope of the law • Regional: none • International: CBD Convention 1992; FAO Seed Treaty 2002; UNDROP 2018 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 Often referred to as Actors 6 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 institutions conduct their activities in line with the public interest, and this was included as a requirement in the Agricultural Orientation Law (articles 108, 109 and 110). For the most part, these institutions work in cooperation with peasants and their organizations, although farmers are often included at a late stage (Berson and Brac de la Perrière 2009). Seed propagation, distribution and commercialization are handled by the national seed service (SSN), cooperatives, individual propagators, and small private seed companies. These actors receive foundation seeds from the public institutes and propagate and distribute firstand second-generation seeds to farmers. Seed control and certification are also handled by the public sector through the national seed laboratory (Labosem) and the national directorate which counts a few seed inspectors. Second, the market for certified/commercial seeds is very small in Mali. None of the major global seed companies are present in the country. GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) are currently not used, and their testing is so far only allowed in closed systems (Christinck et al. 2018). Production and commercialization of certified seeds is in the hands of a small but competitive number of private actors, individuals and cooperatives, all of them organized in the Seed Association of Mali (Association Semencière du Mali, ASSEMA). Current estimates suggest that certified seeds account for approximately five per cent of the seed sown for sorghum and pearl millet crops, and for approximately 10–30 per cent of the seed sown for maize and rice crops, depending on how statistics are calculated (Christinck et al. 2018 citing FAOSTAT data for 2010–2014; Waithaka et al. 2019). Third, the development of a seed industry in Mali has been pushed since the 1990s through legal reforms on the one hand, and seed aid on the other (Visser 2017). In the early 1990s, state-owned monopolies in seed production, marketing and distribution were to a large extent dismantled. The liberalization of the seed sector was further promoted by massive processes of ‘legal transfers’, often from imperialist and neocolonial legal regimes (Frankenberg 2013). The objective was to establish the conditions for the production, quality control and marketing of seeds of approved varieties, and establish an intellectual property system for the protection of breeders’ rights on those varieties (Wattnem 2016). The current seed legislation of Mali is underpinned by two key sets of rules, both directly modelled after those found in Europe. First is Regulation C/Reg.4/05/2008 on harmonization of the rules governing quality control, certification and marketing of plant seeds and seedlings in the ECOWAS Region (Economic Community of West African States) which was incorporated in national law through the adoption of Law No. 10-032 of 12 July 2010 relating to plant seeds (hereinafter the Seed Law) and its implementing Decree No. 10-458 of 9 August 2010. Second is Annex X (on plant variety protection) to the 1999 revised Bangui Agreement instituting the African Intellectual Property Organization (Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle, OAPI) which is directly applicable as a national law in Mali and the 16 other OAPI countries. The Malian (OAPI) legislation establishes a plant variety protection (PVP) system modelled after the 1991 Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (hereinafter UPOV 1991). Annex X to the Bangui Agreement was adopted in 1999 by the OAPI under pressure from UPOV and some donor countries such as France and the United States (M. Coulibaly, Brac de la Perrière, and Shashikant 2019). As documented in other parts of the world, the UPOV Convention has often been ushered in by free trade agreements or aid contracts. As markets for many patented, genetically engineered crops are now saturated in the United States, Canada, the European Union and Australia, agrochemical firms are targeting small-scale farmers in the global South (Montenegro de Wit 2019). The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 7 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 These legal transfers have resulted in a total disconnect between, on the one hand, local contexts, realities and practices around seeds, and, on the other hand, the legal and policy frameworks that govern them. Between 80 and 90 per cent of the seeds used in Mali come from what is often described as the ‘informal seed sector’ (H. Coulibaly, Bazile, and Sidibé, 2014) but in fact refers to well-established peasant seed systems. Yet the seed laws and policies focus almost exclusively on commercial seed development, leaving the peasant seeds sector ‘unregulated’ (Sidibé et al. 2018) and ‘not officially recognized’ (Dagnoko and Asiedu 2016: 30). The seed marketing and PVP laws represent a considerable threat for peasants’ rights and their varieties, as these cannot, because of their heterogeneity, comply with the new, distinct, uniform and stable (NDUS) criteria and qualify for registration. This means the seed market is formally limited to industrial varieties and enhanced varieties derived from research. The term used in Bamanankan (the most commonly used language in Mali) to refer to these seeds is shi yamariyalenw, which can be translated as ‘authorized seeds’. That being said, with the adoption of the 2010 Seed Law (replacing the 1995 law), the sale of peasant seeds on local markets is no longer strictly prohibited. Meanwhile, a study conducted in 2018 by the think tank TASAI (The African Seed Access Index) assessed that 80 per cent of private seed producers are highly satisfied with the quality of the seed laws, policies, and implementing decrees, although enforcement is lacking (Waithaka et al. 2019). Funded by and working in partnership with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the US development agency (USAID), Adam Smith International, Cornell University (Emerging Markets Program) and others, the objective of TASAI is to promote ‘enabling environments for competitive seed systems’ (TASAI 2020). In parallel, international donors have supported the selection and production of certified or quality seeds as part of their agricultural development and food security programmes, which have been heavily geared towards supporting commercial agriculture. The West African Seed Program (WASP, which ran between 2012 and 2017 with a total budget of nine million US dollars), funded by USAID, sought to tackle ‘inefficiency’ in the regional seed system. One of its objectives was to encourage ‘intra-regional seed trade by harmonizing regional seed standards and policies’ (USAID 2015). Facilitated by World Bank loans, the West Africa Agriculture Productivity Program (WAAPP, which ran between 2007 and 2017, with a total budget of 500 million US dollars) was launched by ECOWAS and involved 13 countries. In Mali, the government invested 75 million US dollars to increase the productivity of rice, livestock and horticulture (tomatoes, onion, potatoes). Other actors such as the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa have placed emphasis on strengthening the seed sector and promoting the commercialization, distribution and adoption of improved crop varieties (New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition 2013), notably through training and capacity development for small seed businesses. So-called seed aid often forms part of emergency responses to situations causing food insecurity, despite research showing that farmers are often seed secure in times of food crises (McGuire and Sperling 2011). Just as food aid destroys local food production and markets, seed aid tends to undermine local seed production (Visser 2017). In Mali, seed aid has clearly been used to encourage certified seed development and fuel the country’s transition into the commercial seed sector. Through the WASP programme, the government bought and distributed more than 4,000 tons of certified seeds of grains, vegetables and legumes (Waithaka et al. 2019: 19). As noted by Christinck and others (2018), a great proportion of 8 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 certified seeds produced in recent years in Mali is not sold but distributed freely as part of aid programmes managed by USAID, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), or the Red Cross. Fourth, attempts at liberalizing and privatizing the seed sector have so far failed to pay off. The seed industry is struggling to develop as a business in Mali. Adoption of hybrids has been slow and the market for certified seeds is developing at a slow rate. One in eight Malian seed producers did not succeed in selling their seeds in 2017 (Waithaka et al. 2019: 10). Only a few key value chains are emerging, such as irrigated rice, hybrid maize, hybrid sorghum, and onion (Dagnoko and Asiedu 2016). According to TASAI, ‘large scale commercialization fails to materialize’ (Access to Seeds Index 2018). A number of factors help explain this state of affairs, such as cost, accessibility and local preferences. While the vast majority of farmers are poor, certified seeds are costly: hybrid seeds for maize, rice and sorghum are twice as expensive as their OPV (open pollinated variety) equivalent (Waithaka et al. 2019). The state subsidizes fertilizers for cotton, maize and rice, but not for other cereal crops (Sidibé et al. 2018), limiting the capacity of lowincome farmers to put in place the technological package that certified seeds require. Other barriers to accessibility include lack of supply of certified seeds, lack of input distribution centres and training, and lack of commercialization networks (Waithaka et al. 2019). Cooperatives, despite having more reach than private seed actors, have limited marketing capacities outside their region (Access to Seeds Index 2018). Additional factors include challenges with seed storage and preservation; lack of seed inspectors (only 60 for the whole country) and insufficient steps taken to combat ‘fake seeds’; and ill-adaptation of commercial seeds to the culinary needs and eating habits of the population. In contrast, local varieties are preferred because they are easier to store and preserve over time; access to them is facilitated by saving, sharing or exchanges among farmers (Assima et al. 2017); they adapt to changing and local agroecological conditions; and they respond to dietary or culinary expectations. Gender dynamics also shape the patterns of adoption of commercial seeds, which are often introduced by men. It is common for women to tend certain crops and men others, as women often have a dedicated piece of land where they grow certain crops, aside from the family plot. Older women appear to play an important role in the preservation of seeds of peasant varieties (FIAN International 2018). Fifth, farmer organizations and cooperatives are key actors in the propagation, distribution, and commercialization of certified seeds. In the West African context, cooperatives have been granted the same possibilities as seed enterprises. They are officially recognized as producers of certified seeds and their role is regulated and organized. They partner with national research centres, NGOs and seed companies. They distribute seeds mostly at the local or regional level (Access to Seeds Index 2018). The prominent role played by farmer cooperatives in certified seed production adds to the challenge of describing the make-up of seed systems at village level. As noted by Coomes and others (2015), the dichotomy between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ seed systems is often misleading as there is much permeability between the two. This is particularly true in Mali where much of the ‘formal’ system is managed by public and not private enterprises, and where peasant cooperatives are important actors of that ‘formal’ system. Research on farmer seed networks around the world suggests that these networks are often denoted as closed, but that in fact their hybridity is increasing as they are quite efficient in distributing seeds no matter their provenance and mode of acquisition (ibid.). The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 9 Building convergence 6 These protocols are the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 The SNP process was initiated by three main organizations: the civil society network engaged in the promotion and protection of peasant seed varieties COASP (West African Peasants’ Seeds Committee)/Mali, and the two peasant networks CNOP (National Coordination of Peasant Organizations) and AOPP (Association of Professional Peasant Organizations). It was designed by its initiators as a process (and not a project) to highlight that it would be a continuous endeavour that would not be dependent on access to funding, and that it would be led by a collective with no single or one-way leadership. These organizations initially requested the technical support and legal expertise of IRPAD (Institute for the Promotion of Alternatives in Development) and BEDE (Biodiversity, Exchange and Diffusion of Experiences) to explore options for the recognition of peasant seeds as well as the protection of farmers’ rights, relying on the 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, also known as the Seed Treaty. Indeed, Mali has ratified the Seed Treaty, as well as the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its related protocols,6 but has not yet taken any implementing measures. The following paragraphs provide a brief presentation of the organizations involved in the SNP process. COASP/Mali is a civil society network engaged in the promotion and protection of peasant seed varieties. Its membership includes local farmers’ associations, NGOs, peasant women advocating for food sovereignty, and representatives from key peasant organizations at the national level. It was established in 2014 as the Malian section of the regional network of the same name (itself created in 2011) and takes part in all seedrelated regional activities, including the two-yearly peasant seed fair in Djimini, Senegal. AOPP is a peasant network composed of more than 250 peasant organizations, including women’s and rural youth associations, value chains-based associations, and agricultural trade unions. It was established in 1995 and is structured around the country’s decentralized layers. Its main goal is to improve the living conditions of peasants and to achieve food self-sufficiency through family farming. It defends the interests of producers and helps them to cope with their responsibilities in the management of agricultural chains. Together with IRPAD, AOPP was one of the founding members of the Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (Coalition pour la Protection du Patrimoine Génétique Africain, COPAGEN), which has been engaged in the fight against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in West Africa since the 2000s. Above the AOPP is the CNOP, the federation of national and/or regional peasant organizations that covers all the sub-sectors of agriculture, livestock, fishing, and forest. Its objectives are to promote family farming; build peasant leaders’ capacities in the design, monitoring and advocacy of agricultural policies; develop dialogue with other rural development actors; and provide economic and technical support to its members. CNOP is a member of the transnational agrarian movement La Via Campesina (LVC) and of the regional farmers’ association of West Africa (Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et de Producteurs de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, ROPPA). CNOP was part of the core group that organized the first international Food Sovereignty Forum held in 2007 in Sélingué, Mali. In advance of the Nyéléni Forum, it hosted an international workshop on the privatization of 10 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 seeds that discussed the role of peasant seeds in the struggle for food sovereignty (CNOP et al. 2007). The SNP process started with a round of consultations (between January and June 2016) and capacity building with the three main organizations (COASP, CNOP and AOPP), facilitated by the coordination team (comprising IRPAD and BEDE). At the consultations, the key outcomes of the study on the legal framework regulating seeds in Mali, prepared by the first author of this article (who was then with IRPAD) were presented. These consultations took place bilaterally in light of the fact that the organizations all had their own approach and understanding of the seed issue. COASP, for example, was created specifically for the purpose of promoting peasant seeds in Mali and West Africa. Its members have long been producing and promoting peasant seeds, questioning the dominant focus on certified seeds and discussing issues like seed governance. Questions raised by members of COASP/Mali about the legality of their peasant seeds (‘Are my peasant seeds illegal? Am I authorized to sell them?’) were one of the drivers of the SNP process. In contrast, the AOPP did not have a strategy to protect peasant seeds. Over the last two decades, the AOPP has promoted the use of homogeneous seeds, and set up commercial peasant cooperatives for the production and marketing of certified seeds (Berson and Brac de la Perrière 2009). Back in 1997, farmers had pointed to the disappearance of varieties, declining yields and seed quality, reduced rainfall, smaller harvests and high cost of fertilizers. In response, AOPP had identified five possible solutions, including the use of commercial seeds and the improvement of marketing channels (Noray 2010). AOPP created a ‘Cereal Commission’ and began to raise farmers’ awareness on the benefits of using certified seeds. It also created a network of ‘inspector’ farmers, known in Bamanankan as Si fileli kela (literally the person who verifies the seed), which started operating in 1999 and developed into a wide network of over 1,000 ‘inspector’ farmers across Mali. While some praised the AOPP seed programme because it showed that farmers are capable of producing and propagating certified seeds and encouraged local and decentralized seed production, others argued that it threatened the conservation of peasant seeds (Bazile 2006). Most of the seed programmes implemented by AOPP have been embedded in a vision of agricultural development that seeks to make farmers abandon their traditional seed systems and practices (Berson and Brac de la Perrière 2009) and turn them into ‘seed entrepreneurs’ (Goita and Gildemacher 2013). These programmes have been supported by NGOs (like Oxfam Belgium), international research centres (like the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development, CIRAD and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, ICRISAT) and national research institutes (like IER). In line with this focus on commercial seeds, AOPP and CNOP issued a Peasant Memorandum on Seeds in 2009, which the organizations submitted during the preparation of the first seed policy (2009) that paved the way for the current Seed Law (2010) (Indicateur Renouveau 2009). The Memorandum requested the government to allow the registration of peasant seeds in the national seed catalogue, presuming that this would be an effective way of protecting them (AOPP and CNOP 2009). This request was not picked up by the government, in part because of the technical difficulties involved in registering a variety deemed to be national heritage and collectively kept by local communities. This is not to say there have been no discussions within AOPP on the virtues and dangers of certified, hybrid and uniform seeds and their relation to food sovereignty. In 2009, BEDE organized discussions between peasants and local scientists at IER and ICRISAT, and between French and Malian peasants, in partnership with CNOP, the Convergence of The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 11 7 We thank Patrick Mulvany for pointing to the importance of this shift in the African context where the focus of many small-scale farmers’ organizations is on commercial seeds. 8 We thank Chantal Jacovetti, former coordinator of CNOP’s work in relation to peasant agroecology, for sharing information on this. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 Rural Women for Food Sovereignty (Convergence des Femmes pour la Souveraineté Alimentaire, COFERSA) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). The report of these consultations, entitled ‘Improved varieties are not always the best’ revealed concerns that the commercial aspiration of peasant seed cooperatives may not serve peasant interests in the long term. It was also highlighted by the group that food sovereignty relies on autonomous seed systems that do not require external seeds or inputs (Berson and Brac de la Perrière 2009). Yet, despite being embedded in food sovereignty networks, AOPP was still actively promoting commercial seeds in 2016, very much like the West African network of peasant organizations (ROPPA) which conducted trainings in 2015 and 2016 on the topic of certified seed production and marketing (with support of the WASP and WAAPP programmes). The consultations with AOPP enabled participants to raise key issues around the definition, status, and protection of peasant seeds (as we discuss below in more detail), and their relation to commercial seeds. One major issue that was discussed was whether farm-saved seeds (that is, seeds that come from the formal system, are produced by public research or the private sector and reproduced by farmers in their farms) must be considered as peasant seeds. Consultations with CNOP had a different flavour. CNOP had historically vested AOPP with the mandate of coordinating seed-related activities, so as to avoid duplication of effort between the two federations. Yet CNOP’s interest in peasant seeds was reignited by the emergence of peasant agroecology as a way to advance food sovereignty.7 Between 2011 and 2018, CNOP trained more than 3,000 peasants who have adopted agroecology, and who rely exclusively on peasant seeds. These peasants are organized as a network, which is coordinated by CNOP but includes non-CNOP members. The production and dissemination of peasant seeds within this network is a core element of CNOP’s peasant agroecology strategy.8 CNOP therefore joined the SNP process as part of ongoing efforts to promote peasant seeds in the framework of agroecology, and the SNP process itself gained in intensity as a result of its alignment with the peasant agroecology movement in Mali. While legal texts are almost exclusively in French, the consultations were held in Bamanankan to maximize peasant participation and involvement. This gave peasants the opportunity to discover, understand and question the texts in detail, as well as to build and share their vision on plant varieties and on how they think their rights can be better protected. The consultations led to a gradual politicization of the seed issue within these two peasant organizations, and generated a motivation and confidence on their part to take action towards an improved legal framework. Despite initial disagreement on the usefulness of certified/commercial seeds and their relation to peasant seeds, COASP, AOPP and CNOP agreed on a common strategy to engage with state actors. A convergence meeting was organized in December 2016 and a consensus was found through a focus on protecting peasant seeds as part of a system that is distinct from that of commercial seeds, while recognizing the two systems are linked as some seeds travel back and forth between the two. The two central elements of the SNP strategy are: to protect the collective rights of peasants to their seeds; and to do so through a peasant seed systems approach. In the next section, we turn to issues of framing and explore what led to the adoption of the terms ‘peasant seeds’ 12 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. in lieu of ‘local’ and ‘traditional’ seeds, ‘peasants’ rights’ in lieu of ‘farmers’ rights’, and ‘peasant seed systems’ instead of ‘informal seed systems’ within the SNP process. What initially prompted discussions between COASP, CNOP, AOPP, IRPAD and BEDE was the implementation of Article 9 of the Seed Treaty on farmers’ rights.9 In the Seed Treaty, farmers’ rights are conceptualized as composed of four main elements: the protection of traditional knowledge; benefit-sharing; participation in decision-making; and rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds. In 2016, the Seed Treaty Secretariat convened a Stakeholders’ Consultation for Africa which identified the following reasons for the lack of implementation of farmers’ rights in the region: lack of understanding of what these rights constitute; weak and at times contradictory policy or legislation; poor institutional arrangements; and expansion of intellectual property rights (FAO 2016). Three main concerns for African farmers were also identified: lack of supportive mechanisms for saving, selling, exchanging and marketing farmers’ seeds; absence of guidelines for on-farm seed production; and absence of supportive legal and policy frameworks that protect ‘smallholder farmer seed systems’ (ibid: 6). Addressing this last point was the main goal of the SNP process. From local and traditional seeds to peasant seeds What peasant organizations wanted to achieve was the official recognition of their rights over ‘local’ and ‘traditional’ seeds. These terms are not defined in the 2010 Seed Law, but in the implementing measures. A traditional variety is defined as ‘a variety of species that has been improved by traditional farmers and was not influenced by modern breeding practices’, and a local variety as ‘a variety of species developed, adapted and cultivated in a particular environment for a long time’ (DNA 2010). The definition of local variety is based on the territory where it is found, whereas that of traditional variety reflects the practices that contributed to the improvement and maintenance of the variety through generations. It could be inferred that the local variety is a traditional variety adapted to a given territory (M. Coulibaly, Goita, Berson, and Brac de la Perrière 2016). This reflects the reality in Mali, where some varieties are endogenous to particular agroecological areas and others are available in several areas. Actors in the SNP process decided to use the term ‘peasant seeds’ (or varieties), which covers both traditional and local ones. In West Africa, the first references to the term date back to the early 2000s, and are linked to the pioneering activism of the Senegalese Association of Peasant Seed Producers (Association Sénégalaise des Producteurs de Semences Paysannes, ASPSP, established in 2003) (Berson 2008). The term gained further prominence as the result of exchanges between West African peasant and civil society organizations and external partners, such as BEDE and some members of the French peasant seed network (Réseau Semences Paysannes). As documented by Demeulenaere (2014), 9 In 2018, CNOP hosted a civil society consultation on farmers’ rights in Africa, on behalf of the International Planning Committee on Food Sovereignty (IPC). The involvement of one of the members of COASP (also a member of La Via Campesina and the IPC) in one of the ad hoc expert groups on the implementation of Article 9 of the Seed Treaty gave additional legitimacy to the SNP process. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 Framing peasant seeds as a human rights issue The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 13 From informal to peasant seed systems Peasant organizations in the SNP process further rejected the term ‘informal seed system’ that is generally used to describe peasant practices and their relations to seeds.10 They argued that there is nothing ‘informal’ about their seed systems, since these systems have their own sets of rules and shared values, and that the term excludes and devalues their seed systems. Rather, what they need in order to be recognized is a term that legitimizes and empowers them. They adopted the term ‘peasant seed systems’ to refer to all seed activities conducted and/or controlled by peasants, from variety adaptation to the selection, production, saving, distribution and exchange of seeds, being understood as any propagating or reproduction materials of plant genetic resources.11 Peasant seed systems12 are dynamic systems and may vary from one community, organization or network to another. They encompass the following elements: 1. Peasant seeds; 2. Peasant practices (including customary and traditional); 3. Collective rules and values around seed production and distribution developed by peasant communities; 4. Peasant (traditional) knowledges associated with these. In these systems, peasants do not dissociate the seed and food production; they select seeds from the food crops in their fields and keep control over the key steps of seed production, that is, on-farm selection, storage, treatment, and circulation within and among their networks. Seeds are not submitted to compulsory certification, but peasants develop participatory rules to guarantee the quality of the seeds coming out of their systems. 10 The FAO Guide to National Seed Policy Formulation defines the formal seed sector as that in which seeds of identified varieties are produced under established quality assurance systems, while the informal seed sector refers to farmer management of local varieties and methods of local seed production and distribution. While not mentioning peasant seed systems explicitly, the FAO Guide refers to the possibility of using seed laws to ‘provide a facilitating environment for the development of farmer managed seed systems’ (FAO 2015: 8). 11 These systems also include animal genetic resources, but in this article we are focusing on plant varieties. 12 It is worth noting that the definition of peasant seed systems that emerged in the SNP process is not far from definitions of ‘farmer seed systems’ used in East and Southern African networks (ACB 2018). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 the semantic innovation ‘semences paysannes’ is deeply embedded in the French/ Francophone context and has not easily crossed linguistic borders. The French peasant seed network succeeded in framing ‘peasant seeds’ as a heterogeneous and evolving material, containing a high potential for local adaptation and diversification. For Malian peasant organizations, the term ‘peasant seeds’ better reflects the reality of their practices and the rights they want to see protected. It points to their control over the diversity of seeds they have stewarded for generations, and their power to determine the rules governing seed distribution, access, and knowledge sharing within their networks. 14 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. From farmers’ rights to the collective rights of peasants Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 Finally, actors in the SNP process decided to adopt a ‘collective rights to seeds’ approach to defending peasant seed systems. In our view, two elements guided this decision. First was the momentum generated by the recent adoption of the new agricultural land law, which reaffirms customary rights to land. Second was the emphasis on collective human rights in the then ongoing negotiations of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) (UN General Assembly 2018). The agricultural land law (Loi sur le foncier agricole) adopted in 2017 recognizes customary land rights and transfers the governance of land to the community or village level. CNOP, as part of the Malian Convergence against Land Grabbing (Convergence Malienne contre les Accaparements de Terre, CMAT), played a tremendous role in advocating for this new law, which recognizes the rights of rural communities to own and manage their lands according to their customs and traditions. While the previous land laws classified all unregistered lands, including land held on the basis of customary laws, as state lands, thereby putting peasants’ lands under threat of appropriation by the state or private actors, the new law clearly states that no land held under customary laws shall be included in state lands. To draw a parallel between land and seed in the Malian legal system, the ‘national heritage’ concept in the current Seed Law is similar to the principle of state ownership (‘domanialité’) under which all lands (except those held under private property with titles) were considered to belong to the ‘Nation’ and were managed by the state. Indeed, five articles of the Seed Law mention traditional varieties, and one states explicitly that traditional varieties constitute a national heritage and must be managed in the interest of the nation (article 4). The new agricultural land law removed all customary lands from state ownership and put them back under customary laws, thereby legalizing the legitimate rights held by rural communities over these lands for centuries. The same logic inspired actors in the SNP process to frame peasants’ rights as customary rights, that is, as rights to use their seed varieties according to their own customary rules and practices. In so doing, the SNP process is shaping a definition of what farmers’ rights could mean in the African context. At the above-mentioned consultation organized by the Secretariat of the Seed Treaty, participants suggested that farmers’ rights should consist of ‘the customary rights that farmers have had as stewards of agro-biodiversity to save, use, exchange, grow, share, develop and maintain plant varieties’ and that ‘Farmers’ Rights must be viewed as collective rights and not as an individual right’ (FAO 2016: 4). For the collective rights approach to be effective, the ‘national heritage’ principle must be clarified and limited in the law. Currently, this principle is understood as implying that peasant seeds (‘traditional’ and ‘local’ seeds in the terms of the Seed Law and regulations) belong to all Malians and to no one. The Seed Law, however, states that they should be ‘managed in the interest of the nation and of local populations’ (article 17). What peasant organizations are asserting are their rights to use their seeds according to their customs and traditions (including rules, practices and knowledge), and the right to be informed and consulted in case of requests to access these resources. This positioning is congruent with that of the Réseau Semences Paysannes, which rejects the idea that agricultural biodiversity is or should be a public good and places peasant seeds within the ‘commons’ narrative (Demeulenaere 2014). Efforts to establish seed commons are currently ongoing in Germany, India, Ethiopia and Kenya, where communities are adapting the US-based Open-Source Seed Initiative The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 15 Engaging with the state Once the various actors in the SNP process had consolidated their shared vision in a position paper, they started to engage with government actors, including the seed administration, public research institutes and relevant ministries, that is, those in charge of agriculture Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 (OSSI) to their local needs (Montenegro de Wit 2019). Created in 2012, the OSSI operates under a ‘ledge’ system that requires a variety or population to be ‘new’ and an individual with the authority to pledge it. The OSSI de facto excludes heirloom and indigenous varieties which originate from multiple sources or have adapted iteratively over generations, such as peasant seeds, so that no individual could claim them. The OSSI has generated some tensions with food sovereignty actors, who have criticized it for reproducing Western norms of property and innovation, and initially relying on positive law (contractual licenses) to protect customary arrangements (ibid.). Like the OSSI, actors in the SNP process have framed peasant seeds as a protected commons, such as the CNOP in its Peasant Agroecology Manifesto (CNOP 2017). Yet the SNP process itself has not explored opensource as a legal tool. Rather, it has placed its demands within a (collective) rights-based framework, calling for public policies that ‘ensure customary rights to the commons’ and ‘guarantee the collective rights of peasants and indigenous peoples to use, exchange, breed, select and sell their own seeds’ (Nyéléni Agroecology Forum 2015: 6, I.8). The Global Convergence of the Struggles for Land and Water–West Africa (Convergence Globale des Luttes pour la Terre et l’Eau–Afrique de l’Ouest, CGLTE–AO), of which CNOP and COASP are active members, has taken a similar approach (CGLTE–AO 2016: 19). The second factor that played a role in the formulation of a collective rights approach is the participation of SNP actors in transnational agrarian networks (including ROPPA and La Via Campesina) engaged in the process of negotiation of UNDROP (Claeys 2018). Actors in the SNP process were inspired by these discussions, and incorporated some of the elements of the draft UNDROP—notably the definition of peasants and its collective rights element—in their own work. In line with the definition of peasants contained in Article 1 of the UNDROP, all the rights contained in the Declaration are to be exercised by them individually and/or collectively, that is, ‘alone, or in association with others or as a community’ (UN General Assembly 2018: Article 1(1)). Yet the UNDROP was never used as a collective action frame by the SNP process, for it was still under negotiation and not enough actors in Mali knew about it. As noted by Peschard and Randeria (2020), the content of Article 19 on the right to seeds reproduces the farmers’ rights provisions of the Seed Treaty, but its paragraphs 2 to 8 go further than the Seed Treaty. Paragraph 2, for example, states that ‘Peasants and other people working in rural areas have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their own seeds and traditional knowledge’. The UNDROP places a number of obligations on states to respect, protect and fulfil the right to seeds, including to ‘support peasant seed systems and promote the use of peasant seeds and agrobiodiversity’ (Article 19(6)). While the SNP process is at its early stages and has not fully fleshed out what it considers should be the obligations of the Malian state, its submission to the seed policy review process (see below) points to an approach that is in line with that of UNDROP. In the next section, we discuss how actors in the SNP process engaged with the state to advance their claims. 16 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. 13 The following actors were consulted: the National Directorate of Agriculture (Direction Nationale de l’Agriculture, DNA), the national agricultural research institute (Institut d’Economie Rurale, IER), the focal point of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the seed laboratory (Laboratoire des semences, Labosem), the national genetic resources unit (Unité des Ressources Génétiques, URG) which is also acting as focal point for the Seed Treaty, the Ministry of Scientific Research, two universities with important roles in seed issues, the national seed service and the Ministry of the Environment. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 and scientific research.13 The SNP coordination team also met with relevant NGOs. The NGOs which participated in the process included SeedChange (formerly known as USC Canada), ADAF/Gallé (a Malian NGO supporting women’s rights and agricultural production activities), GRAADECOM (Groupe de Recherche d’Actions et d’Assistance pour le Développement Communautaire), and CAB DEMESO (Conseil d’Accompagnement des Initiatives à la Base), all of which adhered to the goal of protecting peasants’ rights despite some of them supporting certified seeds programmes. The discussion first focused on demanding application of Article 9 of the Seed Treaty. This choice was strategic as the government still has to take implementing measures following ratification of the Seed Treaty. In addition, the protection of peasant seed systems as envisaged by the SNP process is consistent with both the Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 8(j)) and the Seed Treaty (Articles 6 and 9). Actors in the SNP process further demanded the recognition of peasant varieties as part of the national seed system in general, with a separate chapter specifying the rules regulating their use (including production and exchange) since these are different from those governing certified seeds. That chapter should, they argued, include the recognition and the fulfilment of the collective rights of peasants to save, use, exchange and sell peasant seeds and farm-saved seeds; to participate in decision-making; to implement free prior and informed consent for access to their seeds and associated traditional knowledge and genetic information; to be protected from illegal appropriation by exclusive intellectual property rights; and to ensure the fair sharing of benefits from the utilization of peasant seeds, traditional knowledge and genetic information obtained with peasants’ consent. Although SNP actors generally prefer using the term ‘peasant seeds’, they included both peasant seeds and ‘farm-saved seeds’ (in French, semences de ferme) here with a view to protecting peasants’ rights to use not only their own seeds but also seeds from homologated/certified varieties saved from their harvests. State actors showed no opposition to peasants’ proposals during the consultations. We identify three factors that may explain the easy adherence of state actors. First, they recognized the importance of peasant varieties in Malian agriculture. Second, they were not aware of the real implications of the PVP legislation. This is linked to the fact that the UPOV system is not adapted to the socioeconomic context and farming system of Mali and has not been implemented (M. Coulibaly, Brac de la Perrière, and Shashikant 2019). Third, the peasant organizations AOPP and CNOP are in constant interaction with key public institutions and were able to use their usual channels of communication to bring them on board. Yet engagement with the state generated discussions about the coexistence of the peasant and certified seed systems. State actors, for the most part, believe that both systems are useful and should not be opposed to one another. They perceive peasant seeds as a fallback option for peasants who do not have access to certified seeds, and as an important reservoir of phytogenetic resources, notably for public research and biodiversity conservation. Peasant organizations, on the other hand, expressed fears about this coexistence as they The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 17 14 A number of international allies (from Venezuela, Italy, France, South Africa and West Africa) were also invited to this event in order to share their experiences. In addition, a study comparing the legal innovations relating to peasant seeds in various countries was compiled by the first and third authors of this article. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 consider the certified seed system as a threat to their own systems. Farmers are concerned about the commercial orientation of the certified seed system, but also about not being able to produce (the growing range of) hybrid seeds in their fields, and about possibly disseminating untraceable genetically modified seeds. They pointed to governmental projects, backed by international donors, which support only the certified seed system, and insisted that the government would need to provide support to peasant seed systems, such as promoting participatory breeding with public research institutes to help peasants enhance their varieties in the framework of agroecology. As the process evolves, however, a key issue will be finding ways to adequately capture the interface between formal/commercial and peasant seed systems and regulate cross-system movements in the law. With the adherence of key state actors, the SNP process proposed the organization of a multi-actor workshop gathering all key actors who had to date been consulted separately.14 The multi-actor meeting took place in September 2017 after additional formal and informal meetings were conducted with national authorities and the office of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The Mali Seed Association (ASSEMA), representing the private sector, also joined at this stage, despite its focus on commercial and imported varieties. At this meeting, participants agreed to establish a consultative framework including all key actors, vested with the mandate of ‘advocating for the official recognition of peasant seeds and peasants’ rights in the national legislation and monitoring the implementation thereof’ (IRPAD and BEDE 2017). This approach was borrowed from the land sector where peasant organizations, led by CNOP, established a multi-actor consultative framework for the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (Committee on World Food Security 2012). This framework had successfully conducted the consultations leading up to the adoption of an agricultural land law, as discussed above. The ambition of the SNP process was that a consultative framework could achieve the same for the national seed policy and, eventually, the seed law. Participants at the multi-actor workshop designed a loose institutional structure to coordinate the work of the consultative framework. The Ministry of Agriculture was designated to chair it, and the secretariat was accorded to CNOP. A technical team, including IRPAD, BEDE and other relevant NGOs and resource persons, was set up to assist the group in drafting key documents. This collaborative and participatory approach contrasts with more confrontational approaches to rights-claiming. In a thought-provoking piece, Mitlin and Patel (2005) explore why Indian grass-roots organizations and NGOs seeking pro-poor urban development have had trouble working within a rights-based approach. They argue that these groups have refrained from engaging in a strategy that is openly aggressive and critical of the state, opting instead for negotiating with local and national government. The reasons for this, they suggest, are that individuals with inadequate access to resources have little interest in abstract rights that can only be realized through contestation and struggle, especially in contexts where courts may not be pro-poor. Also, rights-based approaches place a great emphasis on citizen–state relationships as the basis for accountability and thus have limited effectiveness in weak states. In addition, there is often a lack of pro-poor solutions 18 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. Conclusion This article has shown how the SNP process has adopted a precautionary strategy of legal mobilization for the official recognition of peasant seed systems in the law. Actors in the Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 that can actually be implemented by the state. There is more to be gained from practical solutions designed jointly by the state and disadvantaged social groups, through negotiation grounded in mutual advantage and mutual need. While dialogue with the state is sometimes criticized as co-optation, strategies involving negotiation may be more promising than formal rights-based contestation. This is particularly true in the global South, where notions of citizenship remain partial and fragmented and where relationships based on kinship, religion, ethnicity or gender remain significant (ibid.). These observations resonate with the SNP strategy, which has been more communicative and consultative than oppositional, while being strongly embedded in a rights-based frame. It has acknowledged that the state is a key actor in the Malian seed system, and believes that peasant seed systems will need to be supported and protected by the state. Instead of blaming or attacking the commercial seed system, it has focused on lauding peasant seed systems and their contributions to food security, as well as highlighting the risks associated with the lack of government support. In 2017, the government reactivated its 2015 request to FAO for assistance to revise the 2009 seed policy. The SNP process had started with no idea that such a legal opportunity would present itself but immediately seized it to push its agenda. FAO recruited three experts (one international and two national) to conduct the revision process with a view to submitting a final output to the government. The revision started with an assessment of the seed sector. Experts met with members of the consultative framework in October 2017, which gave actors from the SNP process the opportunity to stress the importance of peasant seeds. A second opportunity to validate the assessment report was given to the consultative framework in November 2017. After the assessment, the FAO consultants were tasked with preparing a revised draft of the seed policy and the national seed plan along with it. Throughout 2018, the consultative framework submitted written proposals to be integrated in the drafts, and comments on the first draft policy and plan which had been circulated in May 2018. At every stage of the process, the technical team was asked by members of the consultative framework to prepare draft documents, which were then discussed collectively, amended and validated. Members of the consultative framework also participated in the validation meeting of the revised seed policy and plan in March 2019. At the time of writing, the future of the process is uncertain. The policy revision process has been contested by a wide range of actors for essentially consisting in vesting consultants with the mandate to prepare a policy for the whole nation. The consultative multi-actor framework has requested that the Ministry of Agriculture regain control over the process, and that a genuine consultation be organized around the seed policy revision. It has kept working on the drafts while waiting for the Agriculture Ministry to take action. In October 2019, the national directorate of agriculture (DNA) shared the final drafts of the national seed policy and plan with the consultative framework and stated that the Agriculture Ministry had full control over the revision process. The consultative framework decided to rewrite the draft policy, and from November 2019 to March 2020, discussions continued and led to a final draft which was (re)submitted to the DNA. This draft was considered by SNP actors as the final version to be discussed and adopted as the new seed policy. As of June 2020, no consultation on this draft has been opened by the DNA. The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 19 Acknowledgements We thank the peasants of Mali for sharing their knowledges, visions and experiences with us. We thank Patrick Mulvany, Robert Ali Brac de la Perrière and Karine Peschard for their insightful comments, corrections and relevant edits on earlier drafts of this article. References ACB (African Centre for Biodiversity). 2018. Towards National and Regional Seed Policies in Africa that Recognise and Support Farmers’ Seed Systems. https://www.acbio.org.za/en/seed-pol icy-paper-towards-national-and-regional-seed-policies-africa-recognise-and-support-farmer-0 (referenced 29 July 2020). Access to Seeds Index. 2018. l’essor des coopératives productrices de semences en afrique de l’ouest et en afrique centrale: Inventaire des forces et faiblesses des coopératives productrices de semences. AFD (Agence Française de Développement), Government of the Netherlands, and AgriCord. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 SNP process have done so in light of mild but real threats, inspired by the insights and experiences of others in transnational food sovereignty networks who have sought to address seed enclosures. The article has also highlighted some of the framing discussions underlying legal seed activism in Mali, and how the SNP process slowly and gradually gave content to the individual and collective right to seeds, from the bottom up. Other scholars have argued that social movements engaged in legal mobilization are constrained in their interpretive schema as they must articulate their claims within pre-established legal categories (Doherty and Hayes 2014). The SNP process confirms these constraints are real but shows that social actors can extend these categories or invent new ones. Exchanges within regional and international solidarity networks contributed a great deal to shaping the right to seeds in Mali. Actors in the SNP process carefully considered the collective action frames most commonly used in seed activism globally, such as seed commons and open source seeds. While rejecting these, they developed a vernacular vision of the right to seeds that is grounded in customs, thereby ensuring their frames resonate in their local context. The process is ongoing, and there is still a possibility that pressure exerted by donors or private lobbies may block the adoption of a progressive seed law. Success will depend on the ability of the consultative framework to operate as a democratic and legitimate space where seed regulatory issues are discussed. It will also depend on the ability of peasant organizations to sustain their active participation in that space, and ultimately ensure that the state protects and supports peasant seed systems while regulating the development of the commercial seed sector. In line with a rights-based approach, measures that the state could take to that effect (and that the SNP process has explored in the context of the national seed plan that operationalizes the new seed policy) include: providing more public funding to support peasant agroecology; more technical support from the public sector in line with peasants’ priorities; and reinforcing local seed exchange systems such as community seed banks, seed fairs, and community registers of peasant varieties. What is at stake in all seed debates is the underlying model of agricultural development that is best suited to protecting biocultural diversity, fostering resilience and ensuring food security for all. And here lies a significant contribution of the SNP process: that of having opened a space for rediscovering and attaching greater value to peasant seeds. 20 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 AOPP (Association des Organisations Professionnelles Paysannes) and CNOP (Coordination Nationale des Organisations Paysannes). 2009. Memorandum Paysan sur la Politique Semencière. On file with the authors. Assima, A., K. Naman, and A. Kergna. 2017. Farmer Feedback Report: Input Use (Seeds, Fertilisers and Herbicides) on Sorghum and Maize by Family Farm Enterprises in the Sudanian Savanna of Mali. Food Security Policy Research Paper. Michigan State University. Ba, B., and M. Bøås. 2017. Mali: A Political Economy Analysis. Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2468085. Bazile, D. 2006. State-Farmer Partnerships for Seed Diversity in Mali. Gatekeeper Series 127. IIED. Benford, R. D., and D. Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–39. Berson, A. 2008. Semences Paysannes, Fondement de la Souveraineté Alimentaire en Afrique de l’Ouest. Semences de la Biodiversité, No 73. GRAIN. Berson, A., and R. A. Brac de la Perrière. 2009. Les Variétés Améliorées ne sont pas Toujours les Meilleures: La Recherche Agricole à l’Épreuve de l’Évaluation Paysanne en Afrique de l’Ouest. BEDE, CNOP, COFERSA, IIED. CGLTE-AO (Convergence Globale des Luttes pour la Terre et l’Eau–Afrique de l’Ouest). 2016. Livre Vert de La Convergence, Document de Plaidoyer. Christinck, A., F. Rattunde, A. Kergna, W. Mulinge, and E. Weltzien. 2018. Identifying Options for the Development of Sustainable Seed Systems: Insights from Kenya and Mali. ZEF Working Paper Series 165. Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn. https://www. econstor.eu/handle/10419/187471. Christinck, A., and M. Walløe Tvedt. 2015. The UPOV Convention, Farmers’ Rights and Human Rights: An Integrated Assessment of Potentially Conflicting Legal Frameworks. GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). Claeys, P. 2015. Human Rights and the Food Sovereignty Movement: Reclaiming Control. New York: Routledge. ———. 2018. The Rise of New Rights for Peasants: From Reliance on NGO Intermediaries to Direct Representation. Transnational Legal Theory 9(3–4): 386–99. Claeys, P., and K. Peschard. 2020. Transnational Agrarian Movements, Food Sovereignty, and Legal Mobilization. In M.-C. Foblets, M. Goodale, M. Sapignoli, and O. Zenker (eds), Oxford Handbook of Law and Anthropology. Oxford University Press. CNOP. 2017. Le Manifeste de l’Agroécologie Paysanne de Nyéléni. Fait au Centre International de Formation en Agroécologie Paysanne de Nyéléni (CIFAN), Selingué Mali. 21 April. CNOP, BEDE (Biodiversité, Échanges et Diffusion d’Expériences), and IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development). 2007. Semences Paysannes, Fondement de la Souveraineté Alimentaire en Afrique: Compte Rendu de l’Atelier International sur la ‘Privatisation Des Semences’. Processus Préparatoire au Forum International sur la Souveraineté Alimentaire de Nyéléni, Bamako. Committee on World Food Security. 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. FAO, United Nations. Coomes, O. T., S. J. McGuire, E. Garine et al. 2015. Farmer Seed Networks Make a Limited Contribution to Agriculture? Four Common Misconceptions. Food Policy 56 (October): 41–50. Coulibaly, H., D. Bazile, and A. Sidibé. 2014. Modelling Seed System Networks in Mali to Improve Farmers Seed Supply. Sustainable Agriculture Research 3(4): 18–32. Coulibaly, M., R. A. Brac de la Perrière, and S. Shashikant. 2019. A Dysfunctional Plant Variety Protection System: Ten Years of UPOV Implementation in Francophone Africa. Working Paper. APBREBES. The Right to Seeds and Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali 21 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 Coulibaly, M., M. Goita, A. Berson and R. A. Brac de la Perrière. 2016. Etude Semences, Normes et Paysans: État des Lieux du Cadre Normatif et Institutionnel du Système Semencier et de la Place des Semences Paysannes et des Droits des Agriculteurs au Mali. IRPAD and BEDE. https:// www.bede-asso.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WEB_Etude_SNP_Light.pdf. Cumbers, A., P. Routledge, and C. Nativel. 2008. The Entangled Geographies of Global Justice Networks. Progress in Human Geography 32 (2): 183–201. Dagnoko, S., and E. Asiedu. 2016. Innovative Experiences in Access to Foundation Seed for Commercial and Non-Commercial Crops for Formal and Informal Seed Systems. The Case of Malian Stakeholders and the West Africa Seed Programme (WASP). ISSD (Integrated Seed Sector Development) Africa. Demeulenaere, E. 2014. A Political Ontology of Seeds: The Transformative Frictions of a Farmers’ Movement in Europe. Focaal 2014(69): 45–61. DNA (Direction Nationale de l’Agriculture). 2010. Manuel de Procédures Pour l’Inscription des Variétés au Catalogue National des Espèces et Variétés. Doherty, B., and G. Hayes. 2014. Having Your Day in Court: Judicial Opportunity and Tactical Choice in Anti-GMO Campaigns in France and the United Kingdom. Comparative Political Studies 47(1): 3–29. Dudai, R. 2019. The Study of Human Rights Practice: State of the Art. Journal of Human Rights Practice 11(2): 273–95. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN). 2015. Guide pour la Formulation d’une Politique Semencière Nationale. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4916f.pdf (referenced 29 July 2020). ———. 2016. Stakeholders’ Consultation on Farmers’ Rights: African Position Paper. http:// www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/113d7c6d-2d48-4a63-8c97-eb9e517b9149 (referenced 29 July 2020). Felicien, A., C. M. Schiavoni, E. Ochoa, S. Saturno et al. 2018. Exploring the ‘Grey Areas’ of State–Society Interaction in Food Sovereignty Construction: The Battle for Venezuela’s Seed Law. Journal of Peasant Studies 47(4): 648–73. FIAN International. 2018. Business Profits or Diverse Food Systems? Threats to Peasant Seeds and Implications in West Africa. Frankenberg, G. (ed.). 2013. Order from Transfer: Comparative Constitutional Design and Legal Culture. Studies in Comparative Law and Legal Cultures Series. Edward Elgar Publishing. Garzón, D. S., and L. Gutiérrez Escobar. 2019. Revolturas: Resisting Multinational Seed Corporations and Legal Seed Regimes through Seed-Saving Practices and Activism in Colombia. Journal of Peasant Studies 47(4): 679–99. Goita, M. D., and P. Gildemacher. 2013. ISSD Briefing Note—April 2013 Mali Seed Entrepreneurship Assessment. ISSD Africa. Indicateur Renouveau. 2009. Coordination Nationale des Organisations Paysannes: Remise du Mémorandum Paysan au Ministre de l’Agriculture. https://www.maliweb.net/category.php? NID¼42947. IRPAD (Institut pour la Promotion des Alternatives en Développement) and BEDE. 2017. Rapport de l’Atelier Multi-Acteurs de Concertation sur la Reconnaissance des Semences Traditionnelles/Paysannes et des Droits des Agriculteurs Dans la Législation Semencière au Mali. Du 10 au 13 Septembre 2017 au Centre de Formation Pratique Forestier de Tabakoro. On file with the authors. Kloppenburg, J. 2014. Re-Purposing the Master’s Tools: The Open Source Seed Initiative and the Struggle for Seed Sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 1225–46. McGuire, S., and L. Sperling. 2011. The Links between Food Security and Seed Security: Facts and Fiction that Guide Response. Development in Practice 21(4/5): 493–508. Merry, S. E. 2006. Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle. American Anthropologist 108(1): 38–51. 22 Mohamed Coulibaly et al. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhuman/huaa039/6028894 by guest on 05 February 2021 Mitlin, D., and S. Patel. 2005. Re-Interpreting the Rights-Based Approach—A Grassroots Perspective on Rights and Development. GPRG-WPS-022. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/ uuid:f1789e92-257f-4202-ba18-04f4d641d061 (referenced 20 September 2020). Montenegro de Wit, M. 2017. Stealing into the Wild: Conservation Science, Plant Breeding and the Makings of New Seed Enclosures. Journal of Peasant Studies 44(1): 169–212. ———. 2019. Beating the Bounds: How Does ‘Open Source’ Become a Seed Commons? Journal of Peasant Studies 46(1): 44–79. Morten Haugen, H. 2020. The UN Declaration on Peasants’ Rights (UNDROP): Is Article 19 on Seed Rights Adequately Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and the Right to Food? Journal of World Intellectual Property (online). New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. 2013. 2013 Progress Report Summary. Noray, S. de. 2010. L’AOPP et ses Cooperatives Semencières au Mali. Grain de Sel 49. Inter-réseaux. http://www.inter-reseaux.org/IMG/pdf_p31_32_AOPP_Semences.pdf. Nyéléni Agroecology Forum. 2015. Declaration. https://ag-transition.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/10/NYELENI-2015-ENGLISH-FINAL-WEB.pdf (referenced 20 September 2020). Peschard, K., and S. Randeria. 2020. ‘Keeping Seeds in Our Hands’: The Rise of Seed Activism. Journal of Peasant Studies 47(4): 613–47. Routledge, P. 2017. Space Invaders: Radical Geographies of Protest. London: Pluto Press. Shashikant, S., and F. Meienberg. 2015. International Contradictions on Farmers’ Rights: The Interrelations between the International Treaty, its Article 9 on Farmers’ Rights, and Relevant Instruments of UPOV and WIPO. Third World Network and Berne Declaration. Sidibé, A., E. Totin, M. Thompson-Hall et al. 2018. Multi-Scale Governance in Agriculture Systems: Interplay between National and Local Institutions around the Production Dimension of Food Security in Mali. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 84 (March): 94–102. Stammers, N. 2009. Human Rights and Social Movements. London and New York: Pluto Press. Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in Movement. Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge University Press. TASAI. 2020. The African Seed Access Index. Background. https://tasai.org/background (referenced 20 September 2020). UN General Assembly. 2009. Seed Policies and the Right to Food: Enhancing Agrobiodiversity and Encouraging Innovation. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, to the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly. A/64/170. ———. 2018. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. Resolution 73/165 adopted 17 December. A/RES/73/165. USAID. 2015. Fact Sheet. West African Seed Program (WASP). https://www.usaid.gov/west-af rica-regional (archived content, referenced 20 September 2020). Visser, B. 2017. The Impact of National Seed Laws on the Functioning of Small-Scale Seed Systems: A Country Case Study. Oxfam Novib. Waithaka, M., S. Dagnoko, S. Dembele, M. Mugoya, and K. Tihanyi. 2019. Mali Rapport 2018: TASAI (The African Seed Access Index). Wattnem, T. 2016. Seed Laws, Certification and Standardization: Outlawing Informal Seed Systems in the Global South. Journal of Peasant Studies 43(4): 850–67.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Right to Seeds and Legal Mobilization for the Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali

The Right to Seeds and Legal Mobilization for the Protection of Peasant Seed Systems in Mali

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS