Global trends and challenges affecting peasants and other people working in rural areas

In its second report to the Human Rights Council, submitted pursuant to Council resolution 54/9, the Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas considers current global trends and systemic challenges that undermine the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, as reported by States, civil society and peasant communities. Any references to peasants or peasants and rural workers in this report encompass all rights holders under the Declaration, as elaborated on in the Working Group’s first report to the Human Rights Council.¹ The present report is based on concerns raised in two calls for input made by the Working Group, in 2024 and 2025,² although not every issue faced by rights holders could be addressed. The calls for input were complemented by a series of online discussions, which provided invaluable information. The Working Group warmly thanks all contributors.

1. A/HRC/57/51. ↩
2. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2024/implementation-united-nations-declaration-rights-peasants-and-other-people and https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-input-global-trends-challenges-affecting-peasants-and-other-people. ↩

In the report, the Working Group examines land and water rights, gender-related issues around climate change, social protections, labour exploitation and unfair trade systems, and highlights some of the positive steps taken by States to address these issues and to improve the situation for rights holders. It concludes by calling upon States, international bodies and civil society to uphold their human rights obligations, address the violations raised and mainstream the Declaration in constitutions, laws and practices.

In the final study of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the advancement of the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas,³ the Advisory Committee described in detail the forms of discrimination faced by rights holders, all of which remain relevant today. The Working Group, in its first report, elaborated on the intersectional discrimination faced by rights holders. Peasants and other rights holders remain broadly invisible as a group because they are not recognized in national statistics or as groups worthy of protection. Yet there is also growing hope: as described below, countries are increasingly recognizing rights holders in their constitutions and laws. In this report, the Working Group intends to show both the challenges faced and the steps that States have taken to improve the situation.

3. A/HRC/AC/8/6. ↩

Peasant communities maintain intricate relationships with the territorial spaces that form the foundation of their livelihoods, cultural practices and social organization, including: agricultural lands where they cultivate crops, preserve seed varieties and practise sustainable agriculture; marine and coastal areas that provide sustenance and income and are of cultural significance for fishing communities; forests and woodlands that are crucial for gathering non-timber products, making traditional medicines and maintaining ecological balance; wetlands and water bodies that support diverse agricultural practices and aquaculture; riverine areas that sustain irrigation, fishing and transportation; grazing routes and pasturelands that are essential for pastoralist communities; and ancestral domains with deep historical, spiritual and cultural significance that shape peasant identity and community organization.

Violations of peasant territorial rights represent a complex, interconnected web of injustices that affect not only the human rights of rights holders under the Declaration, including their relationship with land and water, but also their survival, cultural identity and dignity as human beings. 1 A/HRC/57/51. 2 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2024/implementation-united-nations-declaration-rightspeasants-and-other-people and https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-input-globaltrends-challenges-affecting-peasants-and-other-people. 3 A/HRC/AC/8/6. GE.25-11584

The erosion of peasant land rights is a global phenomenon. Insecurity of land tenure stems from systematic dispossession, weak legal protections and discriminatory practices that disproportionately affect peasants and rural workers.⁴ Land-grabbing by corporations, Governments and large-scale agribusinesses displaces peasants without fair compensation or consent. Furthermore, insecure land rights are exacerbated by inadequate legal recognition of customary tenure systems, gender bias in inheritance laws and corruption in land administration. Many peasants lack formal titles, leaving them vulnerable to eviction, while climate change and conflict further destabilize their claims.

4. See https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2019-en-secure-%20land-tenure-rights-successful-approaches.pdf. ↩

Examples are widespread.⁵ In Brazil, the expansion of large-scale agribusiness, coupled with illegal mining and rampant land speculation, fuels persistent violent land conflicts. Rural leaders and communities that resist encroachment face systematic threats, violence and murder.⁶ This situation reflects near total impunity for perpetrators and failure by the State to resolve long-standing tenure disputes and protect its rural citizens.

5. Examples in the report are primarily taken from submissions in response to the calls for input and have been included to illustrate issues that are widespread and not limited to the States that may be mentioned herein. ↩
6. See submission from La Vía Campesina Brazil (extended version). ↩

In Indonesia, land conflicts nearly doubled under the current Administration, driven largely by infrastructure projects, with 2,939 land conflicts identified between 2015 and 2023. The plantation sector accounted for nearly 40 per cent of all conflicts recorded since 2015, with oil palm growers particularly associated with massive deforestation and land-grabbing. The Merauke food estate project exemplifies systemic violations of Indigenous land rights. Its aim is to clear 3 million hectares of land in Merauke, an area 45 times the size of Jakarta, two thirds of which would be for sugar-cane plantations and the rest for rice fields, while Indigenous Papuans report that they were never properly informed or consulted.⁷

7. See submissions from FIAN Indonesia and Serikat Petani Indonesia (Indonesian Peasants’ Union). ↩

While it is important to recognize the importance of land conservation efforts, the way in which they are implemented is of vital importance in respecting the rights of rights holders. The rise of carbon and biodiversity offsetting and associated appropriation of land, often termed “green grabbing”, transform ecosystems into tradable financial assets, accelerating the financialization of nature and putting significant capital into land markets. By 2023, global carbon offset markets reached a staggering $414 billion, with projections soaring to $1.8 trillion by 2030. Such green grabbing now constitutes roughly 20 per cent of all large-scale land acquisitions, often displacing vulnerable communities in the process. For instance, Blue Carbon, a company of the United Arab Emirates specializing in environmental asset creation, has secured agreements for carbon offset projects spanning over 24.5 million hectares across Liberia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Such deals have been linked to the forced eviction of Indigenous groups, for instance the Ogiek people of Kenya.⁸ Meanwhile, fossil fuel giants such as Shell continue to heavily invest in offset projects, further entrenching corporate control over land under the guise of environmental sustainability. This trend highlights how market-based conservation schemes can replicate the same exploitative patterns as traditional land grabs, prioritizing profit over people and ecological integrity.

8. See https://ipes-food.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/LandSqueeze.pdf. ↩

Economic restructuring programmes promoted by the International Monetary Fund are accelerating the privatization of land markets. In Sri Lanka, this policy threatens to trigger 4 See https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2019-en-secure-%20land-tenure-rights-successfulapproaches.pdf. 5 Examples in the report are primarily taken from submissions in response to the calls for input and have been included to illustrate issues that are widespread and not limited to the States that may be mentioned herein. 6 See submission from La Vía Campesina Brazil (extended version). 7 See submissions from FIAN Indonesia and Serikat Petani Indonesia (Indonesian Peasants’ Union). 8 See https://ipes-food.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/LandSqueeze.pdf. GE.25-11584 mass dispossession by removing protections that secure peasants’ access to land, making them vulnerable to market forces and corporate acquisition.⁹ In Malaysia, laws are being amended to favour corporate agriculture, with the expansion of plant breeder rights undermining traditional seed systems and paving the way for land consolidation by agribusiness.¹⁰

9. See submission from the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR). ↩
10. See submission from the Malaysian Food Sovereignty Forum. ↩

Land is increasingly treated as a financial asset rather than a productive resource for communities. Such financialization reflects the increasing importance of financial markets, actors, motives and discourses that permeate the economy, leading to profits increasingly generated from financial transactions rather than from productive economic activity. This process transforms land into an investment asset, blurring the lines between wealth held as land and wealth accumulated through financial assets, such as rent and capital gains.

The financialization of farmland has accelerated dramatically, with institutional investors, including pension funds, insurance companies and endowments, pouring approximately $45 billion into global farmland between 2005 and 2017.¹¹ During this period, the number of agricultural investment funds exploded tenfold, from 45 to 523, with 161 funds specifically treating farmland as a stand-alone asset class. By 2023, the sector had further expanded to around 960 active funds specializing in food and agricultural assets, collectively managing over $150 billion. In the United States of America alone, investor-held farmland more than doubled in value between 2021 and late 2023, reaching $16.6 billion. Sovereign wealth funds have also emerged as major players, allocating 2 to 3 per cent of their staggering $10 trillion in global assets to food and agriculture investments, thus cementing farmland’s status as a financial commodity rather than a community resource.

11. See https://ipes-food.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/LandSqueeze.pdf. ↩

Land concentration refers to the increasing consolidation of ownership and control of land in fewer hands, which often leads to a disproportionate distribution of land value and benefits. Globally, 1 per cent of the world’s farms now operate 70 per cent of the world’s farmland, while 84 per cent of the world’s farms control just 12 per cent of farmland. The wealthiest 10 per cent of the rural population captures 60 per cent of agricultural land value, while the poorest 50 per cent captures only 3 per cent.

Land ownership patterns reveal stark inequalities across regions, with Latin America exhibiting some of the highest concentrations globally. In Colombia, just 1 per cent of landowners control over 80 per cent of farmland, while in Brazil, a mere 0.3 per cent of agricultural holdings account for 25 per cent of the country’s farmland. North America and Europe show a trend of farm consolidation, with small farms disappearing rapidly; the European Union lost 4.6 million small farms (under 5 hectares) between 2005 and 2020, while large farms (over 100 hectares) grew by 20 per cent and now dominate more than half of the region’s farmland. In Asia, land inequality has increased by 11 per cent since 1980. In China, for instance, the richest 10 per cent of landowners hold 50 per cent of the land, as measured in value, while the richest 10 per cent of landowners in India hold 45 per cent of all farmland. Cambodia experienced one of the sharpest rises in land concentration, with its Gini coefficient jumping from 0.56 to 0.72 in just 12 years, driven by economic land concessions covering 2 million hectares, or 53 per cent of its arable land. These trends reflect a global pattern of land accumulation by powerful actors at the expense of smallholders and rural communities. The 10 largest transnational landowners now control a staggering 404,457 km², an area roughly the size of Japan, Paraguay or Zimbabwe.¹²

12. See https://ipes-food.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/LandSqueeze.pdf and www.fian.org/files/is/htdocs/wp11102127_GNIAANVR7U/www/files/Lords_Land_Fian_20250602_fin.pdf. ↩

Large areas of farmland are converted for extractive industries and mega-developments. Mining projects accounted for 14 per cent of large-scale land deals over the past decade, consuming some 7.7 million hectares of farmland. Rapid urbanization is projected to swallow up to 3.3 million hectares of farmland by 2030, particularly in Asia and Africa.¹³

13. See https://ipes-food.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/LandSqueeze.pdf. ↩

Notwithstanding the many concerns identified above, the Working Group wishes to highlight positive examples of State actions that have strengthened the land rights of peasants, as reported in responses to the calls for input.

In Colombia, Legislative Act No. 1 of 5 July 2023 recognizes peasantry as a subject of special constitutional protection and acknowledges historical discrimination and the need for the establishment of a specialized court in this sector. Under Act No. 2046 of 2020, public food supply programmes are required to allocate at least 30 per cent of their budget to purchasing local products from family, peasant and community agriculture, thus supporting fair trade and local economies. Through Resolution No. 331 of 2024, the Ministry of Agriculture introduced the concept of agroecology, while, through Resolution No. 464 of 2017, it adopted guidelines on family, peasant and community agriculture that are used by peasant organizations for national and regional advocacy. Furthermore, the National System for Agricultural Reform and Rural Development is a mechanism for planning and coordinating agricultural reform with the aim of improving quality of life and guaranteeing territorial rights.

Ecuador was the first country to ratify the Declaration as a cross-cutting instrument for its peasant communities, urging all State institutions to integrate the principles of the Declaration into policies and laws. In addition, the relevant legislation mandates access to credit, education, health and social security for peasants.¹⁴ The Constitution guarantees the right to land and promotes its fair distribution for sustainable agricultural production. It also provides for a national land fund to ensure equitable access for peasants. The Organic Act on Rural Lands and Ancestral Territories regulates land use and ownership to promote food sovereignty, productivity and a sustainable environment and encourages policies on organizational strengthening, market access, technical assistance, technological innovation and training in associative management for family farmers.

14. National Assembly Resolution No. RL-2021-2023-156 of 18 April 2023. ↩

In Mali, the new Agricultural Land Act, developed through a multi-actor platform, is cited as a good example of ensuring adequate and effective participation of peasants in policy processes. The Act introduced a fourth land regime for community agricultural lands, established village land commissions that include women and youth and reserved at least 15 per cent of State-developed land for women’s and youth groups. It also fosters progressive agreements on local natural resource management that recognize women’s involvement.

India has several laws that protect peasant rights, including the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (2006), the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (1996) and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (2013). These Acts have been relatively effective in promoting rights and providing access to judicial mechanisms, notably by granting village assemblies authority over land and resources and requiring free, prior and informed consent for development projects.

The land reform programme of Namibia, including the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act of 1995 and the Communal Land Reform Act of 2002, aims to redistribute land and improve security of tenure. The National Resettlement Programme settles landless and marginalized communities on rehabilitated farms. Furthermore, the Constitution provides a strong foundation for protecting human rights, including customary land rights.

The Constitution of Indonesia implicitly recognizes the human rights of peasants. Act No. 5/1960 on Basic Agrarian Principles serves as the legal umbrella for agrarian policy, focusing on the social function of land, ownership limits and land reform. Act No. 18/2012 on food prioritizes domestic agricultural production, while Act No. 19/2013 on the protection and empowerment of peasants guarantees access to abandoned land. In addition, the National Commission on Human Rights issued Standard Norms and Regulations No. 7 on Human Rights to Land and Natural Resources, which directly references article 17 of the Declaration. The National Action Plan for Family Farming also references the Declaration.

Togo has established planned agricultural development areas to facilitate access for vulnerable small producers to land, inputs, water and financing.

Cuba implemented agrarian reforms in 1959 and 1963 through which hundreds of thousands of peasants received land, and created credit and services cooperatives and agricultural production cooperatives in the 1970s to foster collective organization.

The Province of Buenos Aires in Argentina adopted the Provincial Programme for the Promotion of Agroecology, which aligns with the principles of the Declaration and promotes equal access to land by providing productive land, inputs and tools and organizing training and communal farming.

The Constitution of Nepal allows for scientific land reforms, discourages absentee land ownership and promotes land management and agricultural modernization, while the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018) ensures peasants’ rights. Moreover, local governments have significant authority to draft and implement laws related to agriculture, water and forests.

Through its land reform policy, Zimbabwe has redistributed land to smallholder farmers, and the Government has initiated land audits to regularize ownership and provide secure tenure. The country has also finalized a policy framework, strategy and action plan on agroecology.

Fisherfolk are increasingly witnessing the dispossession and erosion of their customary rights to access, govern and use their territories, which historically include rivers, coastal lands, oceans, wetlands, brackish water bodies and forests like mangroves and swamps.¹⁵ For fisherfolk, the use of rivers, oceans and coastal spaces is deeply meaningful, as they provide food, support socioeconomic well-being and form the basis for their beliefs, customs and culture.¹⁶ This deep connection to their environment as custodians of nature underpins their identity and traditions.

15. See A/HRC/55/49. ↩
16. See submission from the World Forum of Fisher Peoples. ↩

The concept of “fisher commons”, or customary commons, is critical for fisherfolk, who historically view the ocean, rivers and coastal lands as integral parts of their territories. However, States are transferring ownership of these commons to State authorities and private entities in the name of development, reducing fisherfolk to mere workers in the fisheries sector. This process, referred to as “ocean-grabbing”, undermines their identity and violates their rights to land and natural resources (art. 17 of the Declaration), food sovereignty (art. 15), a clean and healthy environment (arts. 14 and 18), and cultural identity (art. 26). The blue economy agenda, driven by ocean-based trade arrangements and marine spatial planning, leads to the commodification of oceans and the appropriation of customary commons by global multinational corporations.

Small-scale fisherfolk in coastal communities, such as those in Pagsangahan (San Francisco, Quezon) in the Philippines, face eviction from their traditional settlements due to the aggressive expansion of tourism and commercial projects.¹⁷ In South Africa, inland fisherfolk remain vulnerable due to lack of recognition, criminalization by environmental agencies, and private security firms working for tourism establishments on rivers and dams.¹⁸

17. See submission from Katarungan. ↩
18. See submission from Masifundise and Coastal Links (South Africa). ↩

River fisherfolk are affected by large infrastructure projects, such as dams and hydroelectric plants. In Thailand, dam construction projects (for example, the Pak Mun and Hua Na Dams) have forced peasants and fisherfolk to leave their land, causing disputes and loss of occupation and fish species, often without fair compensation or rehabilitation.¹⁹ In addition, policies on the development of coastal natural resources lead to governments grabbing land and resources for tourism, carbon credits and seafood exports.

19. See submission from the Assembly of the Poor (Thailand). ↩

Globally, pollution from mining and industrial activities are negatively affecting fisheries. In Eswatini, river pollution from chemicals used in sugarcane farming has caused fish populations to drop, with dead fish found at river banks.

In the fierce competition for land, resources and industrial projects, rights holders worldwide face frequent violence, criminalization and repression by private actors or State authorities, often when they try to assert their land rights or resist dispossession.²⁰ This persecution is manifested in forced evictions carried out by military and police forces that are often accompanied by destruction of homes, crops and community infrastructure. Peasant leaders and land defenders are routinely subjected to arbitrary detention, judicial harassment and fabricated criminal charges designed to silence their advocacy efforts and intimidate their communities. Many face surveillance, threats and physical attacks. This violent repression extends to the criminalization of traditional peasant practices, where activities like seed saving, collective land use or resistance to corporate projects are reframed as illegal acts. At times, State security forces may collaborate with private security companies hired by corporations and large landowners to suppress peasant resistance, creating a climate of fear and impunity that perpetuates land-grabbing and rights violations. These actions violate the right to life (art. 6), the right to a safe and healthy environment (art. 18) and the principle of access to justice (art. 12).

20. For a broad overview, see the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (A/HRC/58/53). ↩

When peasants engage in legitimate and peaceful protest to defend their territories, including through road blockades or land occupations, some States respond with disproportionate and excessive force, including gender-based violence and extrajudicial killings, and judicial harassment, with activists routinely labelled as criminals or terrorists to justify the repression. Indigenous Peoples and small-scale peasant farmers confronting land grabs face targeted violence, while legal systems often fail to hold perpetrators accountable. Even when the courts have ruled against unlawful evictions, State inaction often perpetuates displacement.

The rights of peasants to freedom of thought, belief, conscience, religion, opinion, expression and peaceful assembly (art. 8) are frequently violated through State repression, discriminatory laws and socioeconomic marginalization. Governments often criminalize peasant movements protesting land grabs, environmental destruction or labour exploitation, by using anti-terrorism or public security laws to justify arbitrary arrests, surveillance and violent dispersal of demonstrations. In many cases, corporate and State actors collude to suppress dissent, targeting peasant leaders with harassment, defamation and even extrajudicial killing. Religious and cultural discrimination further silences marginalized rural communities, while limited access to independent media and digital exclusion in remote areas stifles freedom of expression. These systemic violations create a climate of fear, undermining peasants’ ability to organize, practise their beliefs or demand justice without reprisal.

Governments and allied corporate media often engage in campaigns to stigmatize peasants and their organizations, labelling them as anti-development or as criminals or enemies of the State. This narrative serves to isolate peasant movements from broader public support and justifies repressive actions against them. This practice infringes upon the rights to dignity (preamble and art. 3) and to freedom of expression and opinion (art. 8), thus creating a hostile environment for their legitimate activities.

The use of terrorist labels can be seen as a form of lawfare against legitimate calls for rights. Peasant groups’ warnings of the potential consequences of inadequate climate policy have devolved into a struggle for free speech, in which the primary goal by some governments is often to criminalize, discredit and delegitimize climate groups. The targeting extends to portrayals in the media, where harmful rhetoric from officials, who variously describe protesters as terrorists, criminals, foreign agents, anarchists and extremists, is commonplace.

An example of repression is red-tagging in the Philippines, where peasant leaders and rural activists are falsely labelled as communists or terrorists, exposing them to harassment, surveillance and violence.²¹ Empowered by the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, the authorities can detain individuals without charge and seize assets on the basis of unproven accusations. A similar practice in Peru, known as “terruqueo”, involves branding Indigenous and peasant groups as terrorists to delegitimize dissent.²² Used since the 1980s, the practice has become a tool used by some politicians and media to silence opposition to State policies.

21. See submission from Focus (Philippines). ↩
22. See submission from Colectivo Solidaridad Quebec-Peru. ↩

The systematic nature of this repression can extend to legislative measures. In May 2023, the Supreme Court of Peru ruled that citizen demonstrations are unlawful and illegitimate, as they are not recognized in the Constitution or in any other legal regulation. Furthermore, Legislative Decree No. 1589 of 2023 amended the Criminal Code to enable the arrest of citizens and social leaders who exercise their right to protest. In 2008, Eswatini passed the Suppression of Terrorism Act, which can be used to target civil society groups. The same year, the authorities declared the People’s United Democratic Movement opposition party, the Swaziland Youth Congress and the South Africa-based Swaziland Solidarity Network as terrorist organizations.²³

23. See submission from Rural Women’s Assembly Swaziland. ↩

Strategic litigation against public participation are increasingly used to intimidate and silence peasants who resist land grabs, environmental destruction and corporate exploitation. By filing frivolous or exaggerated defamation, trespassing or nuisance suits, powerful actors, such as agribusinesses or large landowners, drain communities of resources, create legal fear and suppress dissent. These abusive legal tactics undermine peasants’ rights to defend their livelihoods and territories and environmental justice, thus perpetuating systemic inequality.²⁴

24. See https://focusweb.org/protect-land-rights-defenders-from-criminalization-stop-slapp-cases-on-peasants-and-activists/#:~:text=Peasant%20and%20other%20small%2Dscale,and%20demands%20from%20the%20countryside. ↩

Armed conflicts pose a direct threat to land access and rural livelihoods, often resulting in the violent dispossession of peasant communities. Military occupation and 21 See submission from Focus (Philippines). 22 See submission from Colectivo Solidaridad Quebec-Peru. 23 See submission from Rural Women’s Assembly Swaziland. 24 See https://focusweb.org/protect-land-rights-defenders-from-criminalization-stop-slapp-cases-onpeasants-and-activists/#:~:text=Peasant%20and%20other%20small%2Dscale,and%20demands% 20from%20the%20countryside. GE.25-11584 hostilities can lead to the outright loss of agricultural land, with vast areas seized or rendered unusable and communities severed from their means of production. Deliberate destruction of farms, irrigation systems and forests further devastates rural economies, while attacks on critical infrastructure, such as dams and power plants, can trigger catastrophic flooding, environmental damage and forced displacement. Blockades and restrictions on agricultural exports disrupt farmers’ access to markets, thus deepening food insecurity. In addition, violence against rural populations, including attacks on homes, fields and essential services, contributes to mass displacement, starvation and loss of life. These patterns demonstrate how armed conflict systematically undermines the rights and survival of peasant communities worldwide.

Recognizing these serious challenges, many States are taking positive measures to address them. These measures often involve strengthening legal and judicial frameworks, improving access to justice and implementing protective policies. The second International Conference on Land Reform and Rural Development, to be convened in Colombia in 2026 with the support of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, will be an opportunity to share and build on those positive examples. In 2021, Ukraine introduced an agricultural land reform that enabled the sale of agricultural land with certain restrictions, including a prohibition on sales to foreign entities. Peasants and farmers who are affected by conflict should not be forced to sell their land due to displacement or economic hardship.

The Working Group has publicly expressed concern over the terrible impact of conflict on the peasants, Bedouin and rural workers in the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank. Violence by settlers, State security forces and the Israeli military is causing untold destruction and must cease immediately, and obligations arising from international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, must be respected.²⁵

25. See communications ISR 24/2024, available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=29583, and ISR 11/2025, available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=29974. ↩

In Colombia, the establishment of the agricultural court through Legislative Act No. 03 of 2023, amending the Constitution, aimed to ensure that there are judges and prosecutors dedicated exclusively to resolving agrarian conflicts quickly and simply. This measure also explicitly recognizes the special protection afforded to peasants and ethnic communities. Furthermore, Decree No. 1004 of 2024 regulates the Joint National Committee for Rural Affairs as a forum for dialogue and consultation between the Government and rural communities to coordinate public policies regarding the rural population and promote the realization of this population’s right to equality by recognizing it as a subject of rights and special constitutional protection.

Mali adopted the Land Act of 2017, which introduced significant changes, such as the creation of village land commissions that include women and youth. The Act also requires that at least 15 per cent of developed State lands be reserved for women’s and youth groups.

The Supreme Court of Kenya has affirmed that non-binding agreements such as the Declaration possess persuasive value as interpretive tools to vitalize constitutional provisions. This view has been effectively applied, for instance in the successful legal challenge by the Kenyan Peasants League against the lifting of the ban on genetically modified organisms.²⁶

26. See https://viacampesina.org/en/2023/06/the-legal-fight-of-the-kenyan-peasants-league-against-the-lifting-of-the-ban-on-gmo-in-kenya/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↩

The Land Act of Ghana includes a novel protection whereby any decision or practice under customary tenure that results in discrimination is voided. In Cameroon, a State decree specifies modalities for controlling the social conformity of investment projects, which incidentally provides protection for populations affected by these projects.

Through the national policy on persons affected by dams,²⁷ Brazil has established specific protocols for damages and participation in comprehensive reparation processes. The Philippines reported on a case referral system designed to safeguard against unjust persecution of agrarian reform claimants by ensuring that agricultural disputes are certified by the Department of Agrarian Reform before proceeding to court, ideally leading to the dismissal of fabricated charges.²⁸

27. See Federal Act No. 14.755/2023. ↩
28. See Republic Act No. 9700. ↩

Articles 3 and 4 of the Declaration affirm the right of rural women and girls to freedom from discrimination in all spheres of life, including land ownership, political participation and access to productive resources. Yet, in practice, these rights are often violated due to deeply entrenched patriarchal norms, economic marginalization and discriminatory legal and customary frameworks. Peasant women face intersecting forms of oppression based on gender, rurality, class, ethnicity and indigeneity, which exacerbate their exclusion from decision-making, resource distribution and economic opportunities. Structural inequalities deny them equal rights to land ownership, inheritance and control over agricultural production (arts. 4 (h) and 17), thus perpetuating cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement. In addition, rural women endure disproportionate burdens of unpaid care work, gender-based violence and limited access to education and healthcare, further entrenching their vulnerability.

These violations are evident across multiple regions. In southern Africa, widows are routinely dispossessed of marital land under male-dominated customary systems, violating their rights to tenure security. Peasant women in Latin America and the Caribbean face systemic barriers, including exclusion from credit, markets and agricultural training, while, globally, the male-centric design of farming tools and machinery disadvantages women in their daily labour. In India, Dalit and Adivasi women farmers face caste-based discrimination alongside gender inequities, which restrict their access to land and fair wages. Such systemic discrimination contributes to heightened food insecurity, malnutrition and displacement among rural women and underscores the urgent need for legal, social and economic reforms to uphold their rights.

Rural women face compounded discrimination rooted in patriarchal norms that restrict their access to fundamental resources. In Kenya, women constitute 80 per cent of the agricultural labour force and provide 60 per cent of farm income, yet own only 5 per cent of the land.²⁹ Women’s right to own, inherit, manage and dispose of property is under constant attack from customs, laws and individuals and officials who believe that women cannot be trusted with or do not deserve property. In Nepal, most peasants lease land from landed individuals who do not farm. Seventy per cent of women in the country work in farming, but access to land is very low and less than 34 per cent of women farmers own any land.³⁰

29. See https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/women/property/factsheet.htm. ↩
30. See https://nepalindata.com/media/resources/items/20/bNLFS-III_Final-Report.pdf. ↩

Similar patterns emerge across sub-Saharan Africa, where customary law systems frequently deny women inheritance rights. Despite their key role in agriculture, in many African regions, women do not have equal access to or control and ownership over land and natural resources. In Lesotho, traditional practices force widows and single mothers off their land following their husband’s death, violating provisions on non-discrimination (art. 4) and the right to work and to an adequate standard of living (art. 13). This systematic disinheritance renders women vulnerable to poverty, food insecurity and homelessness.

The denial of land rights constitutes one of the most common violations of protections for peasant women. Men’s names almost always appear on the titles and deeds for properties, 27 See Federal Act No. 14.755/2023. 28 See Republic Act No. 9700. 29 See https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/women/property/factsheet.htm. 30 See https://nepalindata.com/media/resources/items/20/bNLFS-III_Final-Report.pdf. GE.25-11584 farms and plots. This systematic exclusion from formal land ownership violates the equal rights requirement (art. 4) and the access to land guarantee (art. 17). Legal frameworks often fail to translate into practical protection for women’s land rights. Although 164 countries legally recognize a woman’s right to access, own and control land, only 52 countries guarantee these rights in practice.³¹

31. See https://www.ifad.org/en/w/opinions/why-rural-women-need-land-rights-a-conversation-with-steven-jonckheere#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20you%20won’t%20be,countries%20actually%20guarantee%20this%20right%20in%20practice. ↩

Migrant women working in rural areas face additional vulnerabilities in the form of sexual violence when claiming labour rights. In Spain, documented cases reveal how sexual coercion functions to suppress women’s exercise of their right to just and favourable conditions of work (art. 9). This pattern illustrates how gender-based violence intersects with labour exploitation to systematically deny peasant women their fundamental rights.

Several States and civil society actors have instituted legal and policy reforms to address gender inequalities. In the United Republic of Tanzania, the Tanzania Women Fishworkers Association and a gender desk at the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries have been established, and the 2015 fisheries policy mandates women’s participation in management and decision-making and their access to resources. Quota systems and economic empowerment initiatives have also been introduced in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Nepal and Rwanda to enhance rural women’s representation.

In Kenya, the Community Land Act provides for special rights for women. Similarly, in Lesotho, the Land Act of 2010 explicitly grants women equal land rights, but there have been implementation challenges. In Togo, Act No. 2018-005 on private and State-owned land gives women access to land on equal footing with men.

Organizations like the Katosi Women Development Trust in Uganda provide women with capital loans to help secure land tenure and assist them in getting their names on land titles. The Trust is also scaling up access to microfinance in rural and fisher communities.³²

32. See submission from the Katosi Women Development Trust. ↩

In Ecuador, the “Violet Economy” public policy aims to expand financial options, productive assets and markets for women, promote their empowerment and reduce their vulnerability to violence. In addition, the “Rural Women Super Credit” scheme specifically addresses the barrier of requiring a husband’s signature for women to access credit. In Brazil, the National Programme for Strengthening Family Farming provides low-interest credit to family farmers, which supports their economic stability.

Supporting and promoting alternative food production systems, such as agroecology, provides rural women with a way to break dependence on corporate agriculture and mitigate climate change. In Kushtia, Bangladesh, women farmers have successfully shifted from harmful tobacco cultivation to vegetable and maize production for family food security.

These success stories notwithstanding, significant implementation gaps persist. The weak enforcement of gender equality laws in many countries means that many women continue to face discrimination and violence without access to effective legal remedy. The gap between policy and practice undermines the transformative potential of these positive initiatives and highlights the ongoing need for robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure that the rights of peasant women are fully realized and protected.

Climate change is resulting in violations of multiple peasant rights, disproportionately affecting populations who have contributed least to global greenhouse gas emissions but are bearing their most severe consequences. The Food and Agriculture Organization projects that climate change could force an additional 122 million people, predominantly peasants, into extreme poverty by 2030.³³

33. See https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/07bc7c6e-72e5-488d-b2f7-3c1499d098fb/content. ↩

Article 18 of the Declaration establishes the duty of States to conserve and protect the environment and the productive capacity of the land in compliance with international obligations to combat climate change. The failure to adequately address climate change constitutes a breach of this fundamental duty, as environmental degradation directly undermines the productive foundation of peasant livelihoods.

Climate change negatively affects a wide range of rights under the Declaration. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has established links between climate change and reduced crop yields, which increases food insecurity in violation of peasants’ fundamental right to adequate nutrition.³⁴ Extreme weather events, including floods, droughts and heatwaves, systematically destroy harvests, leading to immediate food shortages that contravene the obligation of States to ensure food security.

34. See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/. ↩

Climate change is disrupting traditional sowing cycles and creating conditions in which native crops can no longer survive. This environmental pressure may force peasants toward commercial hybrid seeds that increase dependency and reduce resilience, eroding their right to maintain and use traditional seed varieties.

Droughts represent a serious hazard for the agricultural sector.³⁵ This form of environmental degradation creates unpredictability that prevents peasants from planning agricultural activities effectively, thus undermining their ability to define their own food systems and produce sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food.

35. See https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/un-state-of-the-global-climate--a-stark-reminder-of-the-urgent-need-to-leverage-agrifood-solutions/en. ↩

Climate change prevents peasants from enjoying their rights as it affects the productive resources that form the foundation of their livelihoods. Rising sea levels and coastal erosion render agricultural lands in deltas and coastal regions unusable, causing permanent displacement that renders it impossible for peasants to enjoy their right to remain in their ancestral territories. Subsistence farmers in the Mekong and Nile deltas face the imminent loss of their land due to saltwater intrusion and land subsidence and, therefore, systematic deprivation of their land rights through environmental degradation. Desertification and prolonged droughts are intensifying across the Sahel region of Africa, degrading land to the point of complete unviability and forcing communities to abandon their ancestral territories. Fisherfolk are affected by disruptions to fish populations, fishing conditions and their livelihoods. Rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification and changes in sea state affect where and when fish can be caught, thus impacting both the quantity and species available. These changes can lead to reduced catches, forcing fisherfolk to adapt to new fishing locations or even seek alternative livelihoods.

Altered rainfall patterns, receding glaciers whose meltwater feeds major river systems in the Andes and Himalayas, and increased evaporation rates are creating severe water shortages that directly impact peasants’ ability to irrigate crops and sustain livestock. The right to water (art. 21) faces systematic violation through climate-induced scarcity. Environmental degradation represents a systematic failure of States to protect essential resources required for agricultural production, in violation of peasants’ right to safe and clean water for farming and domestic use.

One way to address these problems is to include peasants in international forums, such as the Conferences of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the 33 See https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/07bc7c6e-72e5-488d-b2f73c1499d098fb/content. 34 See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/. 35 See https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/un-state-of-the-global-climate--a-stark-reminder-of-theurgent-need-to-leverage-agrifood-solutions/en. GE.25-11584 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Their first-hand knowledge of the impacts of climate change and potential mitigating actions is ignored through their exclusion from such forums.

The right to food sovereignty is enshrined in article 15 of the Declaration, while articles 16 and 11 guarantee an adequate standard of living, a fair income, transparent pricing mechanisms and access to markets. Nevertheless, global market structures systematically undermine these rights. In Portugal, small-scale rural producers routinely struggle to access markets that offer fair or stable prices, largely due to supermarket dominance, intermediaries and lack of State support for direct sales. The result is persistent poverty, the closure of businesses and social exclusion.³⁶

36. See https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40americas/%40ro-lima/documents/publication/wcms_545431.pdf. ↩

Globally, the lack of respect for producer-set prices and the imposition of cost-efficient supply chains by dominant agribusinesses leads to widespread income insecurity. Notably, India and France have witnessed alarming rates of bankruptcy and suicide among peasants linked to unremunerative prices and debt cycles.³⁷ Industrial agriculture and the proliferation of ultra-processed foods further marginalize agroecological and traditional food systems, eroding market share and viability for smallholders and organic producers.

37. See https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250609-climate-change-heightens-risk-of-indian-farmer-suicides and https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250228-the-mental-health-crisis-pushing-french-farmers-to-a-breaking-point. ↩

Small producers also face increased difficulties in accessing local markets due to maladapted hygiene rules or the closure of traditional open markets or public shopping halls, as can be seen in former Soviet countries and Eastern European countries.

The right to a fair income is routinely undermined by global market structures that prioritize corporate profit over peasant livelihoods. Unfair trade policies, volatile commodity prices and monopolistic agribusiness practices depress farm incomes, forcing smallholders into debt and landlessness. Peasants are often excluded from market information systems, leaving them vulnerable to exploitative intermediaries who manipulate prices for staple crops. In Mexico, for example, the flood of cheap corn from the United States under the free trade agreements bankrupted small-scale maize farmers, while in West Africa, European dairy subsidies undercut local pastoralists.

Many States lack the financial capacity to compensate for low farm prices. While some regions, like the European Union, provide subsidies as safety nets, implementation gaps persist, particularly for small-scale farmers. For example, half of the smallest farmers in Portugal are excluded from aid under the common agricultural policy due to eligibility thresholds and administrative hurdles.

In addition, bureaucratic obstacles and limited technical assistance restrict access to income-stabilizing policies, such as insurance schemes. This leaves smallholders at a disadvantage compared to large agribusinesses.

One positive example is the “First Mile” project in the United Republic of Tanzania, where smallholder potato growers used real-time price updates by text message to counter 36 See https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40americas/%40rolima/documents/publication/wcms_545431.pdf. 37 See https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250609-climate-change-heightens-risk-of-indianfarmer-suicides and https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250228-the-mental-health-crisispushing-french-farmers-to-a-breaking-point. GE.25-11584 buyer exploitation.38 Previously, farmers in isolated rural communities were underpaid by traders passing through on their return trips from Malawi, but mobile access to market data has enabled collective bargaining, forcing fairer prices and boosting incomes by 20 to 35 per cent. The project, which combined mobile alerts with community billboards (serving farmers without phones) and so-called market spies who gathered data on urban prices, demonstrated how locally adapted technology can disrupt exploitative systems. Similar successes in Malawi show that mobile phones help farmers bypass intermediaries, proving that accessible market information transforms rural livelihoods.³⁹ 39 The National Supply Company of Brazil is a public company under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply that facilitates the management of agricultural supply and policies to ensure food security, and the implementation of programmes such as the Food Acquisition Programme.⁴⁰ 40 By providing crucial data and analysis on the country’s agricultural production, the National Supply Company supports peasant agriculture by enabling peasants to know when and where to plant, harvest and sell their products.

39. See https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/use-mobile-phone-technology-agricultural/75589. ↩
40. See https://www.abc.gov.br/training/informacoes/InstituicaoCONAB_en.aspx. ↩

Agricultural workers frequently face severe violations of labour rights, including exploitative wages, hazardous working conditions and denial of the rights to social protection and freedom of association, as standard labour laws either exclude agricultural work or are poorly enforced in that sector. Many toil as informal or seasonal workers without contracts, leaving them vulnerable to wage theft, child labour and exposure to toxic pesticides without adequate safety measures. Rural workers are routinely neglected in social security systems, resulting in denial of healthcare, pension or unemployment benefits, while women and migrant workers face compounded exploitation, including gender wage gaps and trafficking risks. These abuses trap peasants in cycles of poverty, with little recourse against powerful landowners and agribusinesses that profit from their precarious situation.

Peasants and rural workers globally continue to face systemic violations of their right to freedom of association and their rights to form and join trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining, as enshrined in articles 8 and 9 of the Declaration and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the ILO Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Despite formal ratification by many States, practical implementation remains deeply flawed, particularly in the rural and agricultural sectors. There are widespread obstacles to these rights in the agricultural sector, including retaliation against union organizers, legal exclusion of informal or seasonal workers from union rights, and barriers to registering organizations of rural workers.⁴¹ In countries such as Colombia, Guatemala and the Philippines, rural union leaders have faced violence and intimidation, as documented in cases before the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association. By excluding peasants from national dialogues, States undermine not only the right to collective action but also the ability of rural workers to advocate for fair wages, land rights and protection from exploitation, thus perpetuating a cycle of structural disempowerment.⁴²

41. See https://www.iuf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/C11-anniversary-study.pdf. ↩
42. See https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_dialogue/%40actrav/documents/publication/wcms_850582.pdf. ↩

Despite fundamental protections under the Declaration (arts. 3, 4, and 7), agricultural workers in Europe, one in four of whom are migrant workers, face systematic exploitation. In the agricultural regions of Almería and Huelva in Spain, migrant workers face violence, long working hours and routine underpayment. These risks are sometimes institutionalized, as illustrated by that country’s Collective Recruitment at Source programme, which creates precarious conditions, particularly for Moroccan women. The problem is widespread, with migrant workers across numerous European Union countries often paid below the minimum wage, and there is a significant gender pay gap evident in the sector.

In Ecuador, the company Furukawa Plantaciones was found by the Constitutional Court in 2024 to have subjected over 300 predominantly Afro-Ecuadorian peasant workers to modern-day slavery and to have violated their rights to decent work, health, housing, education and non-discrimination under both national and international law.⁴³ Workers endured decades in unsanitary camps lacking clean water, electricity, medical care and basic labour protections, children were forced to work from a young age, and adult workers suffered serious injuries without support.

43. See https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/Ecuador-Constitutional-court-rules-Furukawas-staff-employed-in-slave-like-setting-orders-compensation-to-victims-public-apology/. ↩

The right to social security (art. 22) and the right to an adequate standard of living (art. 16) entail comprehensive social protection, yet coverage remains systematically inadequate.

Peasants and rural workers have weak social protection, with most receiving neither pensions nor unemployment benefits, while minimum wages, where enforced, are insufficient to meet basic needs. Conditional cash transfer schemes in Latin America, such as Bolsa Família in Brazil, provide some relief but often miss the most marginalized or remain subject to political manipulation.⁴⁴

44. See submission from La Vía Campesina Brazil (extended version). ↩

Under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, India provides at least 100 days of guaranteed paid employment per year to rural households, and the Ministry of Rural Development mandates an additional 50 days for scheduled tribe households under the Forest Rights Act. While the Employment Guarantee Act is compatible with the Declaration, implementation challenges persist. A digital system designed to improve payments to workers has faced significant problems with late or failed payments, alleged corruption and 17 states being permitted to apply wages lower than their respective minimum wages.⁴⁵

45. See submission from Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India. ↩

Qatar has implemented several measures that have contributed to protecting rural workers, including the establishment of a minimum wage, wage protections and an electronic wage monitoring system. The Workers Support Fund has been created, along with mechanisms for access to justice and protection against trafficking in persons. Colombia adopted Act No. 2071 of 2020 to alleviate financial burdens and prevent peasants from losing their farms due to an inability to pay their debts. In Mexico, the Sectoral Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development 2020–2024 prioritized food self-sufficiency, support for peasants and alleviation of rural poverty. The Sembrandro Vida programme promotes agroforestry for the benefit of rural populations, while, under the Comprehensive Strategy for Rural and Indigenous Women’s Access to Land, Territory and Recognition of their Agrarian Rights, 2,301 probate procedures were carried out to increase access to land for women in 32 federated entities. In 2024, article 27 of the Constitution was amended by decree to guarantee fair wages for peasant farmers and provide annual support to farmers and fisherfolk.⁴⁶

46. See submission from Mexico (2025). ↩

Diverse, localized and farmer-managed seed systems are the cornerstone of biodiverse, climate-resilient food systems, yet corporate and governmental policies support the homogenization and privatization of seeds. Proprietary seeds leave farmers in debt and consumers are hurt when food supplies rely on fewer crops that are vulnerable to droughts, 43 See https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/Ecuador-Constitutional-court-rulesFurukawas-staff-employed-in-slave-like-setting-orders-compensation-to-victims-public-apology/. 44 See submission from La Vía Campesina Brazil (extended version). 45 See submission from Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India. 46 See submission from Mexico (2025). GE.25-11584 floods and pests. In some countries, farmers are being prevented by intellectual property laws from saving seed year to year, while the marketplace dominance of hybrid seeds means that farmers struggle to access non-hybrid varieties.

New patents on digital sequence information, also referred to as genetic sequence data in international discussions, on genetically modified organisms and on so-called new genetic techniques claim to replicate natural processes or traditional breeding. These patents could result in a ban on traditional seeds, including those used by peasants, Indigenous Peoples and conventional breeders, under the argument that they are indistinguishable from the newly patented seeds.

International instruments, including the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and patents on living things, undermine peasants’ right to seeds by restricting their traditional practices of saving, using, exchanging and selling farm-saved seeds. By granting exclusive rights to commercial breeders, informal seed systems that are essential to agrobiodiversity and rural livelihoods, particularly in the Global South, are criminalized. States’ application of the Convention, often through trade agreements, has proceeded without adequate consultation with peasant organizations.⁴⁷

47. See the 2021 report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food (A/HRC/49/43) for an overview of how seeds are a crucial part of the right to food for rights holders under the Declaration. ↩

The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants system is facing substantial criticism for promoting genetic uniformity of crops and preventing peasants from reusing seeds, in violation of article 19 (8) of the Declaration. Worldwide, 102 countries, including nearly half of the member States of the African Union, are aligning their laws with the Convention. Moreover, in the African Continental Free Trade Area, a proposed protocol on intellectual property would privatize seeds across the continent.

Patents are used as a lever to pry important genetic and cultural heritage away from communities, often in direct violation of the novelty and non-obviousness requirements under patent law, and thus constitute biopiracy. Traditional plants, such as neem, ayahuasca, maca and basmati rice, have been patented by biomedical and food companies, often after being taken from local communities without their consent.

An urgent issue for peasants is the increasing use of legislation to punish farmers who seek to use their own seeds. Articles 19 and 15 of the Declaration establish peasants’ right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds. However, numerous African countries have introduced seed laws that regulate the production, certification or distribution of seeds, with some countries criminalizing the use of native uncertified seeds. In Kenya, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act gives government seed inspectors the power to enter fields and arrest farmers who have broken the law, with breaches punishable by fines of up to 20,000 shillings or imprisonment.

Lastly, while most seed marketing laws prohibit the exchange and sale of highly diverse peasant seeds that do not meet International Union standards of uniformity and stability, the laws of some countries, such as France and Italy, exclude collective peasant seed systems from their scope, while many countries tolerate them in the absence of any formal legal framework.

The seeds component of the Food Acquisition Programme in Brazil involves the distribution of traditional and agroecological seeds that are essential for the food sovereignty of rural communities. The National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production encourages agroecological transition and sustainable agricultural practices through technical assistance, credit and incentives for family farmers and peasants.

Food Sovereignty Malaysia has launched the Community Seed Reserve Initiative to promote traditional practices of saving, sharing and selling seeds among farmers to diversify seed supply and safeguard agricultural heritage. In addition, the Protection of New Plant Varieties Act of 2004 balances plant breeders’ rights with the recognition of farmers’ contributions.

In Ecuador, the Government supports revaluing ancestral practices through initiatives such as seed houses, knowledge-sharing events and native seed exchange fairs and through exemptions from land taxes for farmers who adopt agroecological production methods.

In Argentina, attempts to introduce new seed laws preventing farmers from freely saving seeds led to massive social mobilization, including a nationwide strike on 24 January 2024 in which some five million people protested International Union requirements.⁴⁸

48. See https://grain.org/en/article/7214-seeds-sovereignty-struggle-the-ongoing-battle-against-upov-seed-privatisation. ↩

Article 12 of the Declaration establishes fundamental requirements for accessible legal systems that protect peasant rights. However, systemic failures in legal frameworks and judicial institutions undermine these protections globally.

Many countries have laws or policies that potentially promote peasant rights, but their implementation is consistently weak or they have weak enforcement mechanisms. In Portugal, for example, successive Governments have failed to apply the Family Farming Statute.

Peasants and rural workers can file lawsuits in national courts for denials of participation, land grabs, forced evictions and other violations. Legal remedies can also be sought through regional human rights courts and legal instruments, such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, though only some cases have been won by peasants. In Kenya, articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution guarantee the right to seek legal redress for denied rights. In Brazil, it is possible to initiate legal proceedings through institutions such as the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office.

Nevertheless, implementation remains a concern worldwide. The replies to the calls for input raised numerous concerns, including about lack of judicial independence, corruption, favouritism and reports of bribery and preferential treatment biasing court outcomes. In some cases, the judiciary remains bound by archaic or conservative interpretations that fail to account for contemporary realities, particularly in rural areas. Structural barriers such as elitism, ideological bias and systemic prejudice often prevent marginalized groups from seeking redress, thus perpetuating impunity for powerful actors. Even when rulings are issued, enforcement is often weak due to persistent corruption or political obstruction. In addition, justice is delayed or denied by bureaucratic inefficiencies, including excessively slow procedures and administrative graft. These interconnected issues create systemic obstacles to accountability that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and reinforce cycles of inequality within legal frameworks.

Positive actions by States to strengthen the legal rights of peasants and improve the administration of justice have already been noted throughout this report, particularly in section IV. Here, the Working Group simply wishes to reiterate the importance of actions such as constitutional amendments and legislative reforms to codify the legal rights of rights holders under the Declaration, and of empowering the courts and non-judicial mechanisms to adjudicate these rights, both locally and nationally. 48 See https://grain.org/en/article/7214-seeds-sovereignty-struggle-the-ongoing-battle-against-upovseed-privatisation. GE.25-11584

In the present report, the Working Group has considered how the situation of peasants has both improved and worsened in the 13 years since the Advisory Group described in a study the challenging situation faced by peasants and seven years since the adoption of the Declaration. There is a deeply concerning convergence of pressures threatening rural communities worldwide. While not exhaustive, the report catalogued a wide variety of concerns, along with positive examples of State responses and the strong commitment of rights holder organizations and civil society. The Working Group hopes that the report will inspire readers to identify opportunities for implementing changes to legislation or practices that will address the issues raised and for building on the positive practices mentioned.

Concerning the legal, institutional and governance frameworks, the Working Group recommends that States:
(a) Formally recognize the Declaration and integrate it into national constitutions, legal frameworks and development policies to ensure that its principles are legally binding and enforceable through effective judicial and non-judicial complaint mechanisms for rural populations;
(b) Ensure that national statistics include disaggregated data on rights holders under the Declaration, including peasants, Indigenous Peoples, migrant workers, fisherfolk, family farmers, rural workers and rural women;
(c) Ensure legal recognition and protection for the collective voices of rural workers, including peasant associations, farmers and fisherfolk unions, agricultural cooperatives, Indigenous and rural federations and land rights movements;
(d) Support inclusive international forums, such as the second International Conference on Land Reform and Rural Development and United Nations communities of practice, to promote best practices and strengthen implementation of the Declaration.

Concerning territorial rights, the Working Group recommends that States:
(a) Recognize and protect the territorial rights of all rights holders under the Declaration by legally guaranteeing their collective governance of the full range of ecosystems vital to their lives and livelihoods, including agricultural lands, coastal and marine areas, forests, wetlands, rivers, pastures and ancestral domains;
(b) Enact and implement comprehensive and equitable land, riverine or maritime reforms, as mandated by the Declaration, to prioritize the redistribution of land to landless peasants, secure tenure for smallholders and protect customary land systems;
(c) Immediately review past and present large-scale land acquisitions for agribusiness, extractive industries and “green grabbing” projects until such time as robust human rights and environmental safeguards, including mandatory impact assessments and consultations, are in place and enforced.

Concerning protection, criminalization and security, the Working Group recommends that States:
(a) Repeal or amend anti-terrorism and public order laws used to criminalize protests, seed saving or land use by peasants, and prohibit the use of strategic litigation against public participation and other forms of lawfare;
(b) Uphold peasants’ rights to organize, protest and express dissent without surveillance, defamation or reprisals;
(c) Recognize the extreme poverty faced by many rights holders, and establish and fund mechanisms for rural people to access justice;
(d) Establish effective protection programmes for peasant leaders, human rights defenders and rural communities facing threats and violence, and ensure that any violations are promptly, impartially and effectively investigated.

Concerning food sovereignty, labour rights and social protection, the Working Group recommends that States:
(a) Reorient agricultural policies to support food sovereignty and peasant agroecology, prioritizing production for local and national markets over export-oriented monocultures;
(b) Implement policies that guarantee fair and stable prices for peasant producers, regulate the power of corporations, supermarkets and domestic and international trade agreements, and support the creation of peasant-run markets and direct sales channels;
(c) Ensure the legal protection and promotion of peasant seed systems, uphold the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds, and reject intellectual property regimes, such as the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, that restrict these practices and facilitate biopiracy;
(d) Enforce national labour laws in rural areas to guarantee minimum wages, safe working conditions and the right to unionize for all agricultural workers, including migrants, and expand universal social protection systems, including pensions, unemployment benefits and healthcare, to ensure full coverage for rural populations.

Concerning gender equality, the Working Group recommends that States:
(a) Repeal all discriminatory laws and end customary practices that prevent women from owning, inheriting and controlling land, and implement targeted programmes, including joint titling, to secure land tenure for rural women;
(b) Adopt and enforce robust measures to prevent and respond to all forms of gender-based violence against rural women and girls, including domestic violence, sexual harassment in the workplace and harmful traditional practices.

Concerning climate change and the environment, the Working Group recommends that States:
(a) Integrate the rights of peasants into all national climate change adaptation and mitigation plans, and ensure that climate finance directly supports peasant-led solutions rather than “green grabbing”, the blue economy or other solutions that promote commercial interests over those of people;
(b) Ensure the participation of peasants’ organizations in international forums such as United Nations communities of practice, particularly those on climate change, biodiversity and agroecology.

International organizations play a key role in shaping the global governance architecture that impacts peasant rights. The Working Group therefore urges them:
(a) To systematically mainstream the Declaration in all relevant agencies, programmes and policy advice;
(b) To provide technical and financial assistance to States for the implementation of the Declaration and the development of rights-based rural policies.

In addition, it urges international financial institutions:
(a) To cease promoting policies that mandate land privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization at the expense of peasant livelihoods and food sovereignty;
(b) To incorporate mandatory, independent human rights impact assessments that specifically reference the Declaration as a prerequisite for all financing of projects affecting rural areas.

Civil society organizations representing all rights holders are the primary drivers of change and the first line of defence for rural rights. The Working Group therefore recommends that they:
(a) Continue to build grass-roots capacity and international solidarity to advocate for the implementation of the Declaration at the local, national and global levels;
(b) Systematically document rights violations to support advocacy, litigation and engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms;
(c) Provide legal, financial and technical support to peasant organizations, particularly in cases of criminal proceedings and land-grabbing;
(d) Conduct public awareness and advocacy campaigns to ensure that States and corporations fulfil their obligations and commitments.

In addition, the Working Group recommends that academic and research institutions:
(a) Conduct participatory research with peasant communities to analyse the root causes of rights violations and assess the impact of the implementation of the Declaration, including on agricultural and food policies;
(b) Help develop robust indicators to monitor and facilitate the progressive realization of the rights enshrined in the Declaration.