Key Work Areas

SEARICE empowers small farmers by equipping them to transform their agri-food systems to sustainable and resilient agri-food systems through agroecology, and by promoting farmers' rights by mainstreaming a human rights-based framework in agri-food systems.

Agroecology

SEARICE promotes Agroecology, an integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of food and agricultural systems. It works to ensure the sustainability of agri-food systems by addressing the environmental, socio-economic and political challenges besetting agri-food systems and the livelihood of farmers, especially smallholders and peasants.

Climate change, and the effects associated with it, including rising temperatures, rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather events which bring about flooding and drought, among others, pose some of the most obvious environmental challenges to agriculture. At the same time, the agriculture sector is often blamed for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to the climate emergency. In reality, conventional, corporate, large-scale, monocropped agriculture systems are the largest GHG emitters in the agriculture sector, compared to smallholder and family farmers. The narrow focus on increasing production at all costs is at the root of the philosophy, history and continuing ascendancy of the corporatization of agriculture, with its attendant consequences of soil degradation, water pollution, and rapid loss of biodiversity, among others.

SEARICE posits that Agroecology can transform food and agriculture systems by addressing socio-economic and political barriers.

Agroecology puts people, especially farmers, at the center of the new food system. People are not beneficiaries but rights holders, not as a matter of charity but by virtue of their inherent human rights.

Agroecology holds States to account for their duty to fulfill the rights of farmers. It is founded on the human rights principles of participation, non-discrimination, transparency, equity, as well as the interdependency of the rights to food, health, and education.

SEARICE conducts baselining workshop with the TFA farmers association in Tagukon, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental province, Philippines

Agroecology in practice

The critical state of agriculture has spawned the rise of various approaches that are aimed at transforming the entire value chain of food and agricultural systems, from farm to table. Agroecology in particular is associated with farming practices, that highlight diversity, integrated farming systems, nutrient recycling, and optimization of interactions of plants, animals, humans and the environment, relying mostly on on-farm resources and excluding any practice that may contribute to biodiverisity loss and can harm the environment.

However, agroecology is not just a package of technologies but a philosophy and a way of life. It is based on sound science and marries proven age-old practices of farmers, especially smallholder farmers – practices that are rooted in their traditional knowledge of finding solutions to their problems, grounded on their local context, and built on locally available resources and internal capacities.

SEARICE conducts baselining workshop with KMASCA farmers association at Barangay. Kabugan, Tagukon, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, Philippines

Agroecology as a matter of policy

More than the application of ecological principles to agricultural systems and practices, agroecology calls for an explicit focus on the social and political dimensions of food systems.

Good governance is essential to operationalizing this transformative agenda. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) already provides the framework and the tool to enable the rights of peasants and the right to food. However, UNDROP still requires an effective mechanism to guarantee its full implementation. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is another important element of the nexus to regulate the behavior and operations of agrochemical corporations, food processing companies, and all other private entities engaged in food production, processing and distribution.

In concrete terms, SEARICE posits that the genuine transformation of agri-food systems requires the following:

Policies that will facilitate the urgent transition to sustainable food systems, including support for family farming and agroecology; the localization of food systems; and the rebuilding of the local economy;
Enhancement of local capacities, especially of women and the youth;
Social protection for smallholder food producers and consumers;
Restoration of the integrity of scientific research as a public good; and
Inclusive and transparent policy-making process that guarantees participatory governance in the integration of food and agriculture policies.

SEARICE conducts baselining workshop with OFWABACA farmers association at Barangay Camingawan Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental Province, Philippines

Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use

Crop diversity or crop biodiversity is the variety and variability of crops and plants used in agriculture, including their genetic and observable characteristics. Crop diversity is fundamental to agricultural growth, enabling farmers and plant breeders to develop more adaptive varieties that have the desired characteristics required by farmers and consumers. High crop diversity increases the resilience of the world’s food system and thus of global food security.

In the 1960s, high-yielding crop varieties, and their associated agronomic practices – including the intensive use of chemical inputs to raise farm productivity and manage pests and weeds, among others – were promoted worldwide as part of the so-called “Green Revolution.” The proponents of this new agricultural technology touted it as the solution to the anticipated global food shortage that they warned would result from rapid population growth.

The aggressive marketing of the new crop varieties for their “miraculously high yields,” along with governments’ wholesale support for their adoption through publicly financed extension services, accelerated the replacement of crop landraces and the destruction of the habitats of their wild relatives.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was so alarmed at this dramatic loss of genetic resources, coining the term “genetic erosion to refer to the threat to present as well as unforeseen future plant breeding needs.

By the 1980s and 1990s, FAO was sounding the alarm that three-quarters of crop diversity had disappeared from fields since the early 1900s. The FAO coined the term “genetic erosion” to underline its warning against the dramatic loss of genetic resources. Scientists also expressed concern about the vulnerability of gene bank samples due to unstable funding and inadequate infrastructure. To mitigate these challenges and protect resources from natural disasters, war, and civil strife, gene banks were encouraged to duplicate their holdings.

Thus, in the 1990s, biodiversity conservation became a global priority with the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This convention emphasized conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

After the CBD was adopted, earlier international agreements on crop diversity conservation were revised to fit within this broader biodiversity framework, opening new opportunities for international collaboration. Significant initiatives resulting from this include the expansion of the scope of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) from plant genetic resources to cover all genetic resources relevant to food and agriculture. Then later the adoption of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), or the Plant Treaty.

Seed varieties on display

Rice varieties on display

Access without benefit-sharing

Access and benefit sharing (ABS) is a policy that seeks to ensure that those who access genetic resources and traditional knowledge (users) share the resulting benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, with the resource owners (also called providers). First introduced in the CBD, ABS is based on countries' sovereign rights over their biodiversity and genetic resources. At the same time, ABS aims to encourage and fund biodiversity conservation by highlighting the economic value of these resources.

The ABS framework was designed to promote equitable relationships between the providers of genetic resources and traditional knowledge and those seeking to utilize them for research and development. Unfortunately, the purported intent of ABS under the CBD, and subsequently, under the CGRFA and the Plant Treaty, to protect the rights of provider countries to benefit from the use of their resources, has been progressively subverted by privatization policies enforced through mechanisms such as the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), patent laws, and trade agreements.

The CBD, the CGRFA and the Plant Treaty are acknowledged as the most progressive agreements in relation to food and agriculture. They all aim to facilitate farmers’ access to genetic resources and biodiversity for sustainable agriculture and food security as well as to fairly and equitably share the benefits arising from the utilization of PGRs.

Unfortunately, the achievement of this objective is hamstrung by the fact that decision-making among the State Parties is based on consensus, which is frequently heavily influenced by rich countries whose interests do not always coincide with the conventions’ goals. At the same time, big transnational companies, which are behind the corporatization of food and agricultural systems, exert powerful, well-funded lobbying campaigns to thwart the conventions’ objectives.

As a result, these conventions have failed to achieve their objectives, while private and commercial interests continue to monopolize access to genetic resources. Lack of progress in support of benefit-sharing has been another failing of the conventions’ implementation

In the case of the Plant Treaty, over six million transfers have already been enabled through the Multilateral System (MLS)[2] at an average rate of 1000 transfers per day. Yet, no real money has been put on the table.

The issue lies in the conditions attached to the benefit-sharing contract under the MLS. According to such contracts, benefits will be shared with the provider of PGRFA only when the product that incorporates material accessed from the MLS is commercialized. As a result, the revenue to be generated by the application of the mandatory payment requirement provided for in Article 13.2(d)(ii) of the Plant Treaty has not yet materialized.

Furthermore, unlike other international instruments such as trade agreements, which carry sanctions for non-compliance, the vague provisions of these instruments and their lack of an enforcement mechanism have made it easy for offenders to ignore or transgress the protections they should afford.

Poor or inadequate implementation of these well-intentioned instruments and others like them start with their flawed formulation. While negotiating the language of these instruments, States put aside preeminent goals, such as global food security or biodiversity protection, in favor of their narrow self-interest. Thus, progressive resolutions are watered-down through the insertion of such clauses as, “subject to national law”, “as appropriate”, “subject to availability of funds”. The result are emasculated resolutions that are full of lofty rhetoric but, in reality, are almost guaranteed to fail.

Focus group discussion in Malum Organic Village, Bago City, Negros Occidental Province, Philippines

Global crises demand radical transformations

Today’s crises, from climate challenges to health pandemics may force countries to finally take a unifying position and exercise the political will needed for policy reforms that support sustainable agri-food systems. The CBD, the CGRFA, the Plant Treaty, the UN Declaration of the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), and many other similar international agreements provide good frameworks that can guide policy makers. What is needed is understanding and action on the nexus between and among biodiversity, sustainable agri-food systems, food security and farmers’ rights. To this end, SEARICE calls for the following urgent actions.

Raise the awareness of relevant stakeholders on the commitments of States to implement these international agreements in their respective countries. In many weak States, it is usually the case that key government officials and policy makers are not even aware of the countries’ commitments under these agreements.
Consolidate the efforts of farmers and all institutions supporting the farmer agri-food systems to have a stronger voice in decision-making at the national and international levels. Funding must be made available to enable the genuine participation of farmers in consultation processes.
Strengthen national and regional consultation processes. In most cases, State delegations in international negotiations who are supposed to represent key stakeholders (including farmers) in their respective countries do not conduct any consultation process. Hence, farmers who are directly affected by any decisions related to agriculture are not consulted and are thus excluded from in decision-making.
Mainstream biodiversity in agri-food systems. In many countries, the issue of biodiversity is discussed under the Department/Ministry of Environment; more often than not, there is no coordination with the Department/Ministry of Agriculture. These silos exist in government bureaucracies of many developing countries. There has to be a conscious effort to integrate biodiversity issues within the agri-food systems.
Promote and implement agroecology as a way to transform agri-food systems into sustainable and resilient systems. Agroecology prioritizes the genuine recognition of farmers’ agri-food systems and empowerment of farmers, including women and youth.
Implement UNDROP along with other international instruments that promote human rights- based approaches. There is a need for greater cooperation between FAO and its relevant treaties, on the one hand, and UN human rights bodies, on the other, to promote and facilitate the implementation of relevant international agreements in line with international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and UNDROP.
Ensure that agrochemical corporations, seed and food processing companies, and all other corporations that are engaged in food production, processing and distribution are guided by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. They should adopt and implement policies that respect, protect and fulfil farmers rights; conduct due diligence activities that ensure the conservation and critical sustainability of agricultural biodiversity; and be held liable for biodiversity loss. These corporations should also be mandated to undertake concrete actions to stop agricultural biodiversity loss and to implement farmers rights.

Women members of Camingawan Tagukon Farmers Association in Negros Occidental Province, Philippines