របាយការណ៍សិក្សាស្រាវជ្រាវស្តីពី "តំបន់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចពិសេស (SEZs) និង​ការទាញយកតម្លៃពីតំបន់មេគង្គ ករណីសិក្សាមួយលើការគ្រប់គ្រង និងការកេងប្រវ័ញ្ចដីធ្លី និងកម្លាំងពលកម្មក្នុងតំបន់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចពិសេសកម្ពុជា និងមីយ៉ាន់ម៉ា" បានធ្វើការសិក្សាលើករណីសិក្សាចំនួនពីរលើតំបន់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចពិសេសក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា និងប្រទេសមីយ៉ាន់ម៉ាពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងការលើកទឹកចិត្ត និងការធានាដែលផ្តល់ជូនដល់អ្នកវិនិយោគដោយធ្វើការថ្លឹងថ្លែង និងការការពារផលប្រយោជន៍ទៅដល់សហគមន៍ កម្មករ និងបរិស្ថាននៅមូលដ្ឋាន។ អនុសាសន៍មួយចំនួនត្រូវបានលើកឡើងនៅក្នងការសិក្សាមួយនេះ រួមមានទាំងការស្នើរអោយមានការកែប្រែក្របខ័ណ្ឌច្បាប់ និងអភិបាលកិច្ចរបស់តំបន់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចពិសេស ការកាត់បន្ថយការពឹងផ្អែកទៅលើវិនិយោគទុនបរទេសលើដីធ្លី និងឧស្សាហកម្មដែលប្រើប្រាស់កម្លាំងពលកម្មធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ និងហេដ្ឋារចនសម្ព័ន្ធសាធារណៈ ការឆ្លើយតបទៅនឹងស្តង់ដាអន្តរជាតិនៃតម្លាភាព និងគណនេយ្យភាពក្នុងការរៀបចំវិនិយោគ និងអភិបាលកិច្ច SEZ ដើម្បីកាត់បន្ថយការគម្រាមគំហែងក្នុងការស្រូបយកផលប្រយោជន៍ជាតិ និងកាត់បន្ថយការទាញយកតម្លៃហិរញ្ញពីតំបន់ជាដើម។ 

An online exhibit to commemorate women's role in food provision on the International Day of Women and in observance of women's month. 

To view our online photo exhibition, please click here >>>

By Yasmin Ahammad and Clarissa V. Militante

In the face of authoritarianism and systemically-rooted patriarchy in Southeast Asian societies, do women who have ascended to powerful government positions really wield power? Has this ‘power’ worked towards defending and protecting women and their rights, or has it only helped reproduce patriarchy and support authoritarian rule?

Take for instance the iconic leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who in light of inheriting a complex power-sharing agreement with the military, and a myriad of challenges in Myanmar, is coming under increasing criticism for her authoritarian style of leadership.

In the midst of numerous reports detailing horrifying atrocities against Myanmar’s Rohingya minority, Aung San Suu Kyi—a celebrated icon of democracy and human rights—has had a dramatic fall from grace. In the latest wave of violence, almost 700,000 Rohingya people have fled to Bangladesh, with survivors telling stories of violent killings, rape, and razing of entire villages. Meanwhile Aung San Suu Kyi appears defiant in her refusal to address these human rights violations head on. 

While Aung San Suu Kyi’s perceived silence and complicity in the Rohingya crisis has provoked widespread international condemnation, her behaviour is also not entirely surprising given the legacy of patriarchy and authoritarianism she has inherited and continues to be part of. The complex reality of asserting power in Myanmar leaves little room for virtue.

As the daughter the Founder of the Nation, Aung San, she is both empowered and burdened by her father’s legacy to unify a country split along ethnic and religious lines. This legacy brought her widespread support amongst the numerous ethnic groups, but the peace process has stalled, while conflict in Kachin and Shan state has intensified. Ethnic minorities are increasingly losing faith in Aung San Suu Kyi – a seemingly out-of-touch representative of the Bamar ethnic majority and political elite, ruling from an ivory tower.

In relation to the Rohingya crisis, the situation that has brought her the most criticism from the international community, she has been accused of maintaining silence. Desmond Tutu, a fellow Nobel laureate, expressed a common view in stating: “If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence, the price is surely too steep.” Yet Aung San Suu Kyi has not remained silent. Rather she is making an active, tactical decision to not criticize the Tatmadaw.  

Her responses to the crisis have ranged from bland platitudes about the rule of law, to outright untruths, dismissals, and obfuscation of reports of widespread human rights violations.

As a venerated human rights icon, we expect Aung San Suu Kyi to condemn the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya. As a woman leader, these expectations are augmented; we project saintly qualities onto her, and hope for her to speak out on women’s rights, especially in light of horrifying stories of sexual violence against Rohingya women and girls. 

Yet Aung San Suu Kyi will continue to fail meeting our expectations against this complicated reality in which she is acting as a politician within the confines of a deeply patriarchal regime that retains authoritarian tendencies.

Recognizing these complexities, limitations, and challenges doesn’t mean we should stop demanding more from Aung San Suu Kyi, or hold her accountable. But it does mean we stop idealising her as a saintly icon she could never live up to.  

Conforming to Myanmar’s political culture   

Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership style follows established practice in a country in which the political culture has largely been dominated by men, and characterized by top-down, hierarchical decision making. But she is accused of centralizing governance even further, and closing herself off from everyone but her closest advisors. She maintains a keen distance from the media, as well as civil society groups, the same allies who spent years calling for her freedom.

Her ascent to power has been dogged by the 2008 Constitution, instituted by the military, which guarantees them a quarter of seats in parliament, as well as control over three key ministries—Home Affairs, Border Affairs, and Defence. The same constitution prevents Aung San Suu Kyi from holding the presidency. Likely drafted by the military with her in mind, the constitution bars presidents from having a spouse or children who hold foreign citizenship.

Given this barrier to leadership, Aung San Suu Kyi herself has exuded similarly authoritarian qualities in her consolidation and exercise of power. She has given herself the position of State Counsellor, claiming herself to be “above the President” and de-facto ruler of Myanmar, where she will “make all the decisions,” thanks to the cooperation of her President of choice, Htin Kyaw, a close friend and confidant.

Her mission to maintain her grip on power has meant reaching significant concessions with a rampant military, and curtailing freedom of expression. The number of political prisoners—although significantly fewer than under the previous government—still number almost 50, while defamation cases have soared under the NLD with the use of section 66(d) of the 2013 Telecommunications Law. 

While Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership represents a significant change in Myanmar’s political development, hopes that she can overcome its authoritarian nature have been significantly curtailed. 

The Philippine president’s ‘quarrel’ with women

In Myanmar, a woman in power has become a means to reproduce patriarchy, meanwhile in the Philippines women government leaders fight for whatever space they still have as they try to survive and fight a misogynist head of state.

Apart from the victims of Duterte’s war on drugs or tokhang (knock and then shoot), it was clear early on in his presidency that he was also targeting women in powerful government positions critical of him or his government. (This, on top of denigrating women in general and inciting violence against them through his misogynist remarks passed on as jokes)

The first to suffer from Duterte’s own brand of authoritarianism was neophyte senator and former justice secretary under the Aquino government, Leila de Lima.

Duterte had accused De Lima of drug trafficking, heading a ring of traffickers imprisoned in the country’s main prison in Muntinglupa, south of Manila; and that she had also received drug money for her senatorial campaign. Testimonies from several prisoners were heard during a congressional hearing initiated by the president’s allies on the case of De Lima. Before this, the senator, as head of the Senate justice and human rights committee, was already conducting public hearings on alleged extrajudicial killings under the president’s war on drugs. The conflict between De Lima and Duterte is being traced back to when the latter was still mayor of Davao City, year 2009, and then as chair of the Commission on Human Rights, De Lima initiated an investigation of the mayor’s involvement in the Davao death squads. 

In February this year, the Senate ethics committee dropped charges against De Lima, and the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed cases against her of financing terrorism and violation of the anti-graft law. The Office of the Ombudsman head Conchita Carpio Morales was also threatened with impeachment last year by the president for “conspiring to oust me.” Morales wanted to investigate the alleged unexplained wealth of the president.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the first female Supreme Court chief justice in the Philippines, is under threat of impeachment in a House of Representatives not only ruled by Duterte’s political allies but with hardly any opposition anymore.

These moves to unseat mostly critical women in high government positions have been further eroding the hard-fought rights of Filipino women to be recognized as having political agency and equal status in running affairs of the state.  The Philippines has had two female presidents in the post-Marcos era and in the entire of history of the country—Presidents Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

The ascendance of these women to the highest position of the land has not necessarily translated into the broadening of Filipino women’s participation in governance, realization of women’s rights, and much less in eliminating—or even weakening—patriarchal values. Corazon Aquino’s government was also marked by human rights violations, particularly against peasants, as she championed elite democracy and the interests of her own class, the landed elite.  Macapagal Arroyo’s government is now synonymous with corruption, including alleged corruption that went up to the highest ranks in the military which she had allowed to ensure their loyalty.

Women’s rights advocates have rallied behind De Lima and Sereno, although the two public officials may not always see their situations and struggle as part of the bigger women’s movement.

As the situations in Myanmar and the Philippines show, women in government in the mostly ‘all-boys’ club’ politics of Southeast Asia have a long way to go in overturning patriarchal values, and in championing the rights of all women.

This article was also published in the Bangkok Post on 10 March 2018. 

On 9-10 December 2017, Focus on the Global South participated in events organized by the Agroecology Learning Alliance in South East Asia (ALiSEA) in Luang Prabang, Laos, which included a festival of short films on agroecology, an agroecology market, and a public discussion.

The main objectives of the events were to raise awareness among policy makers and the public about the importance of supporting alternative farming practices and support local agroecological initiatives.

The panel discussion focused on the issue, “We Are What We Eat,” which was articulated around key questions, including:

·        Where is our food coming from?

·        What are the impacts of current main farming systems/agriculture production models?

·        What are the alternatives to the current conventional farming systems (pathways towards healthier and fairer farming/food systems)?

·        How do we encourage the youth to keep farming, in a way that makes them proud of what they do and that help create healthy food systems?

Our Executive Director, Shalmali Guttal, made a presentation on the situation of smallholders in the Mekong region, the importance of local food systems, alternatives to conventional agriculture, and pathways to healthier, fairer food systems.

A video of the panel discussion is now up on the ALiSEA YouTube channel, here. Shalmali’s presentation starts around the 12:30 mark. 

Photo legend:  Duterte's campaign slogan, "Change is Coming" becomes an eerie foreshadowing of the "change" that has swept the Philippines—deepening culture of impunity and misogyny, increasing violence and criminalization of dissent, and escalating extrajudicial killings and human rights violations. 2017 September 21. Quezon City, Philippines. Photo by Galileo de Guzman Castillo.

The withdrawal of the Philippines from the International Criminal Court will further give rein to extrajudicial killings and violence against women, indigenous peoples, environmental defenders, activists, as well as impinge on the exercise of rights of the Filipino people as a whole. Even before this recent declaration from Mr. Duterte, the culture of impunity has become more widespread and has deepened under his government. To cite: 20,000 killed in the war on drugs and no cases have progressed, much worse no-one has been punished, with police forces figuring significantly in the killings; indigenous leaders and environmental defenders are killed with impunity in the name of corporate interests; corporations continue to practice contractualization with workers having no recourse to local laws because the president himself has refused to end it, reneging on his presidential campaign promise.

The space at the national level to voice dissent and seek justice for victims of human rights violations in the Philippines has been undermined by the Duterteadministration. The petition to tag activists as terrorists blurring the lines of legitimate dissent and terrorism; the law granting subpoena powers to the police despite clear track record and recent cases of abuse, coupled with continued attacks on institutions and individuals are clear indications that genuine spaces for redress at the national level are rapidly shrinking if not long since gone.  

Duterte is again employing bully tactics by declaring the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC, which was also intended to push the idea that such withdrawal could spur more States to leave the ICC. In Southeast Asia, only the Philippines, together with Cambodia and Timor Leste, have ratified the Rome Statute, and thus the Philippines withdrawal could undermine the credibility and significance of the institution and further strengthen the architecture of impunity under increasingly authoritarian governments Asia. The intention is to force the ICC to backpedal on the case against Duterte where a preliminary examination has already been launched for his crimes against humanity.

The ICC is not a political tool being used against Duterte by mere detractors but a tool against impunity of those with legitimate grievance. It is a tool of peoples to seek redress, to fight dictators and fascists like Duterte. When a government passes a law that violates the separation of powers and grants the police subpoena powers thereby putting its people under a police state, when the president and a government kills 20,000 poor people accused of being drug users without due process, when a government oppresses its workers, when a government kills activists, indigenous peoples, environmental defenders to promote corporate interests, when a government is misogynist and promotes violence against women, it is the right of the people to use international legal mechanisms to thwart this government. 

We, therefore, join the ranks of other civil society organizations, human rights advocates, activists in denouncing this latest unilateral act of Mr. Dutertewho has once again shown that he is losing his legitimacy as leader of a democratic society respectful of human rights.

Signatures,

1. Focus

2. Lilak

3. Women's Legal Bureau 

Statement of Trade Justice Pilipinas

Trade Justice Pilipinas is alarmed over reports that the European Union is wavering on its commitment to protect and promote human rights in the context of its long-term strategic partnership with the Philippines.  The statements made by Stefano Manservisi, Director General of the European Commission for International Cooperation and Development that the EU will modify the standard text of the future agreements with the Philippines to avoid reiterating the condition on respect for human rights already stated in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) reflect a diminished appreciation of human rights in the context of EU-Philippines relations. This clear accommodation on the part of the EU to the demands of the Philippine government exposes the double-speak of the EU on human rights and unmasks its human rights posturing for what it truly is--a bargaining chip that can be readily muted depending on what will work in favor of EU's business and trade interests.  It must also be stated that the EU's strong push for an ambitious new generation free trade agreement, with provisions that could seriously undermine human rights, and its reluctance to subject economic agreements to human rights impact assessments raises questions on whether it recognizes the primacy of human rights at all.

The implication of Mr. Manservisi’s statement is that in effect trade, commerce and finance are more important than human rights and that the EU is willing to bend backwards and turn a blind eye to the issue of rights violations in order to ensure that economic relations will continue and will be strengthened.

This serious backpedaling by the EU comes at a time when the human rights situation in the Philippines has considerably worsened under Duterte. In the EU’s own global assessment of human rights and democracy (2016), it raised serious concerns over the war on drugs and the rising death toll and more critically how the president’s statements and actions are encouraging a more aggressive approach by the police and vigilante-style extrajudicial killings.

To cite just a few major developments that indicate a worsening human rights condition in the Philippines: The withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC); the tagging of around 600 activists as terrorists. The list includes UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Victoria Tauli-Corpuz who has consistently championed human rights in the context of international treaties; the dismissal of charges against two known big-time drug pushers, and the continued attacks against human rights defenders.

The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) agreed upon in 2012 and just entered into force, and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP+) granted to the Philippines in 2014, are underpinned by a shared respect of democratic principles and human rights.  For GSP+, the preferences are conditioned upon the implementation of 27 international human rights conventions. 

We assert that the human rights dimension must be stressed and strengthened further as a cornerstone of EU-Philippines relations and we expect the EU to prove its commitment to human rights by reiterating human rights provisions in future agreement including the proposed EU-Philippines free trade agreement. Otherwise, it risks eroding further its already diminished image as a defender of human rights and worse highlight its complicity to the violations and atrocities being committed by the Duterte administration.

TRADE JUSTICE PILIPINAS is a multi-sectoral campaign platform established in 2016 to spearhead efforts in the Philippines to monitor and resist new generation trade deals and challenge the corporate agenda driving 21^st Century trade and investment policies.

19 March 2019 - Quezon City, Philippines

_{Photo legend: Trade activists protest EU-Philippines free trade agreement as an attack on peoples rights. Photo taken at the sidelines of the first round of EU-Philippines trade talks in Brussels in May 2016. Photo courtesy of 11.11.11}

Background

Focus on the Global South (Focus) is a non-governmental organisation with offices in Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines and India. Focus combines policy research, advocacy, activism and grassroots capacity building to generate critical analysis and debates among social movements, civil society organisations (CSOs), elected officials, government functionaries and the public on national and international policies related to corporate-led globalisation, neoliberalism and militarisation.

The Thailand Programme Officer will support the development and implementation of the organization’s programmes. In Thailand, Focus works with social movements, CSOs, and academics on land, natural resources, human rights, democracy, trade, and investment.  Among others, Focus contributes to strengthening analysis on those issues, provides spaces for dialogues and discussion, and supports struggles of social movements and local communities. The post holder must initiate, support and, where necessary, lead innovative projects that are in line with the organization’s overall goals and programme.

Key Responsibilities: Under the supervision of the Focus Executive Director and as part of Mekong programme, the Thailand Programme Officer will:

·       Work with other Focus staff to plan, implement and coordinate activities in Thailand and the Mekong region, in line with Focus’ core thematic programmes.

·       Build collaborative relationships with social movements and other civil society actors, and policy makers in Thailand.

·       Initiate and support partners/allies in conducting research, analyses and advocacy

·       Develop and promote critical analyses of national and regional contexts, and use these analyses to support advocacy work in Thailand and the Mekong region.  

·       Disseminate Focus’ analyses through popular education activities, papers and outreach materials.

·       Represent Focus in meetings, conferences and workshops, and to visitors as needed.

·       Assist the Programme Development Officer and Finance Officer in managing budgets and implementing appropriate financial controls.

·       Assist the Executive Director and Programme Development Officer in developing funding proposals, identifying potential sources of funding, and maintaining good relationships with donors.

·       Work with Focus’ Communications Officer in the promotion of Focus ideas and analysis, and help in outreach strategies for the programme.

Qualifications

·       Thai national with minimum three years work experience in Thailand, preferably with social movements, grassroots CSOs, networks and local/national activists.

·       Good understanding of socio-economic, political and ecological conditions, and processes of change in Thailand and other Mekong countries.

·       Strong analytical, conceptual and strategic thinking skills, capacity for research and ability to prioritize work issues to meet deadlines.

·       Strong communication skills with verbal and written fluency in Thai and English.

·       Ability to work in politically challenging environments and conditions.

·       A consultative, participative and gender-sensitive approach to work.

·       Commitment to Focus’ values and ethos, a history of activism and a strong commitment to social justice.

·       Sensitivity to cultural differences and the proven ability to work in different cultural contexts. Excellent teamwork skills and the ability to build good relations both internally and externally.

This is a full-time position based at Focus’ Bangkok office. The post offers a salary commensurate with experience and comparable to those of other regional organisations.

Applications should be in English and include a cover letter, CV, writing samples both in Thai and English and contact details of at least two referees. Please send applications to jobs@focusweb.org with “Thailand Programme Officer” in the subject line by 30 April 2018. 

ឯកសារនេះបង្ហាញពីទិដ្ឋភាពទូទៅនៃនិន្នាការវិនិយោគនៅក្នុងតំបន់ទន្លេមេគង្គ ពីការផ្លាស់ប្តូរច្បាប់ និងគោលនយោបាយ ដែលបានធ្វើឡើងដើម្បីសម្របសម្រួលដល់ការវិនិយោគខ្នាតធំរបស់អន្តរជាតិ និងក្នុងស្រុក និងបង្ហាញពីផលប៉ះពាល់នៃការវិនិយោគបែបនេះ ទៅលើតំបន់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចពិសេស (SEZs) ជាពិសេសទៅលើលក្ខខណ្ឌរស់នៅ និងលក្ខខណ្ឌការងាររបស់កម្មករ នៅក្នុងតំបន់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចពិសេសទាំងនេះ។ ឯកសារនេះ ផ្តល់ជូននៅការវិភាគបែបស៊ីជម្រៅមួយទៅលើទំហំ និងប្រភេទផ្សេងៗនៃការវិនិយោគខ្នាតធំ នៅក្នុងតំបន់ ហើយនឹងពីរបៀបដែលការវិនិយោគទាំងនេះធ្វើឲ្យនិយោគិនខ្នាតធំមានបុព្វសិទ្ធ ជាងប្រជាជនក្នុងស្រុក និងលុបលើប្រយោជន៍សាធារណៈ។ 

By Raphael Baladad and Joseph Purugganan

Quezon City, Philippines– Corporate greed and its impact on public health were central in the discussions on the Dengvaxia controversy in a forum held recently at the University of the Philippines.  The public forum entitled “Dengvaxia Nightmare: People clamor—Did anyone really care about people’s health?” brought together health advocates, members of civil society organizations, and public health and community health practitioners in a discussion aimed at getting the peoples’ perspective on the  Dengvaxia issue.  

Ana Maria Nemenzo of WomanHealth, one of the main organizers of the forum, framed the discussion as an assertion of peoples’ right to health: “So many have referred to this as the Dengvaxia nightmare. In the weeks following Sanofi’s announcement that the vaccine given to over 800,000 schoolchildren may have increased the risk of severe dengue in children who have not had dengue before, there have been a lot of public reaction, public hearings in both houses of Congress were initiated to investigate this public health scandal, and there have been serious debates between and among health professionals, medical experts, and the officials from the Department of Health. Lost is the peoples’ voice and the peoples’ perspective regarding peoples’ health.”

With more than 800,000[1] children administered with the Dengvaxia vaccine, panelists underscored the need to exact accountability from both drug-manufacturer Pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Pasteur as well as from health officials behind the mass immunization program.  But as Nemenzo pointed out, “more than pointing to guilt and culpability, the aim was to clarify what people can do to ensure that this kind of public health problem never happens again and how ordinary people can contribute to this effort.”

[2] Publication of WHO's first dengue vaccine position paper. http://www.who.int/immunization/newsroom/press/dengue_first_position_pap...

* All the presentations and reports are free to download below.

By Joseph Purugganan

Presentation delivered at the Regional Consultation, Training, and Meeting of La Via Campesina Collective on Human Rights, 27 March 2018 in Jakarta, Indonesia

On behalf of Focus on the Global South let me begin by commending all the hard work that has been put into the Declaration on Peasant’s Rights; It is truly a remarkable document.  Allow me to express our hope not just for the adoption of this declaration by the United Nations, but the full realization of these rights for future generations of peasants and rural people who rely on the land for their life.

It is a remarkable effort to assert the rights of peasants today most especially amidst what is happening around the region and across the globe where we are witnessing the continued erosion, but much more so, the demonization of human rights. Where human rights and fundamental freedoms are now seen as hindrance to development, feeding on the notion that these rights are not important and can be traded off for something more tangible like law and order, fighting drugs and criminality. 

We are witnessing a rise of populist authoritarian leaders--strong men--who will promise development, while sowing fear and terror, destroying democratic institutions, and trampling on peoples rights and fundamental freedoms.

Asserting the particular rights of peasants is also a big challenge at a time when the idea that certain people, do not possess rights at all because of who they are and what they’ve become- for example drug addicts, is sadly on the rise again.  The extra judicial killings in the Philippines are a sad testament to this, where thousands of lives have been taken away arbitrarily and violently without due process. The victims have also included human rights defenders, land rights activists, environmentalists-- farmers, workers indigenous peoples-- have all fallen prey to the violence that has been there before but has become so blatant over the past two years in the Philippines.

Very recently, the Department of Justice in the Philippines petitioned the court to declare as terrorist a list of around 600 (although some say the list can be expanded to a thousand) people). The list includes among others Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The lines between legitimate dissent, legitimate assertion and defense of peoples rights, and terrorism are being blurred, making it more and more dangerous for human rights defenders.

This is the sad reality that we confront in our advocacy for Peasants Rights in the Philippines and the region.

We are also in the midst of what many people are calling a globalization backlash, where people who have been disenfranchised, dispossessed, and negatively impacted by economic policies of globalization like trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization, are expressing their discontent through the ballot and in the streets. People are fed up with not having decent jobs, low wages, the rising costs of healthcare, education, and food, and poor transportation systems.

Sadly, people are turning to right wing politicians--to the likes of Donald Trump in the US, and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines on whom they are rely to address their anxieties. A closer look at the economic policies, however show that there has been very little deviation from the same neoliberal, pro-corporate, anti-poor path.

Globalization has perhaps hit agriculture the hardest, Agriculture’s contribution to development has been declining steadily since the 90’s (some say the era of neoliberal globalization). In Indonesia it is about 14 percent of GDP, and in the Philippines even smaller at 9.7 percent. Even in Thailand, a known agricultural exporter, agriculture’s contribution has been reduced to around 8 percent of GDP according to World Bank estimates (2016).[i]

Globalization has changed the countryside. It has impacted on agricultural production processes, the overall rural economy, and the social relations among peoples in the rural areas.

A number of studies have pointed to the neglect of peasant agriculture as a result of globalization and the dominance of so called modern agriculture, the capital-intensive land extensive agriculture of developed nations.[ii] Imports of cheaper agriculture commodities from developed nations flooded the markets, and many small farms were unable to compete. Governments meanwhile shifted their policies away from supporting agriculture. Peasant agriculture was thus hit with a double whammy, what Walden Bello called the unmitigated disaster resulting from trade liberalization combined with declining public investment in agriculture.[iii]

Some scholars assert that all of these changes---in production processes, in technology, in the whole farming economy, the penetration of capital in the rural areas--have diminished the importance of peasant agriculture even in the area of staple food production.[iv] La Via Campesina challenges this and has given its counter assertion on the continued significance of peasant agriculture. In the draft Declaration, La Via Campesina asserts that “the past, present and future contribution of peasants and other people working in rural areas to development and in conserving and improving biodiversity, which is the basis of food and agricultural production. . and the contribution of peasants to ensuring the right to adequate food and food security.”[v]

In many respects, this is the gist of the fight for recognition of peasants’ rights--the recognition of peasant agriculture’s continued importance and relevance today and for the future.

Today, there is a strong push for what is being called 21^st Century trade and investment policies that now give more emphasis on trade in intermediate goods, and in global value chains.  A big part of this policy environment is the push for mega free trade agreements (FTAs) like Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), and the revived TPP (rebranded as the comprehensive and progressive TPP), which are instruments of the corporate agenda. These FTAs constitute a threat to peasants’ rights, to human rights in general, and to peoples’ sovereignty.

The most critical issues are around the most ambitious elements of these mega deals, the ones that distinguish them from older generation free trade agreements.

The first issue is on intellectual property rights (IPR). Health advocates have rallied against these FTAs and their IPR provisions and their impact on access to medicines and public health. 

The IPR chapter is also seen as undermining farmer’s rights.  The IPR chapter in RCEP will force countries to comply with UPOV 91^[vi]--an international convention that has been highly criticized by farmers organizations and support groups for “eliminating the right of farmers to save privatized seeds and also limited what other plant breeders can do with that seed.”^[vii] This goes against Article 19 of the Declaration on the right to seeds.

Another major issue across the region is the investor state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), a provision in the investment chapter of RCEP and all new generation FTAs.   This too runs counter to the fulfillment of peasants’ rights.

The declaration asserts the general obligation of States to  “take measures to prevent transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises nullifying and impairing the enjoyment of the rights of peasants.”[viii]

ISDS will give corporations--many of which have annual revenues bigger than the GDPs of most countries in ASEAN, and therefore have more economic power compared to governments in these countries--the right and even more power to sue governments over public policies and regulations in secret, ad-hoc tribunals.  These tribunals or more appropriately, corporate courts have handed down million dollar rulings that have penalized governments over regulatory actions to defend public health, pursue more inclusive development, protect the environment, and public interest in general.

It is important to highlight at this point the need to link the efforts towards a Declaration on Rights of Peasants with the campaign also at the UN Human Rights Commission towards a legally binding treaty on TNCs and their human rights obligations.  These are parallel and complementary efforts towards the assertion of peoples’ sovereignty and rights and seeking accountability and access to justice for victims of corporate crimes.

21^st century trade also emphasizes global value chains. In agriculture--looking at everything from the production and use of seeds, the access and control of land, the access to production technologies--we see again how big corporations dominate the supply chain.

In a paper on corporate capture of agricultural production, Yoke Ling of Third World Network (TWN) pointed out “Six corporations4 control global markets for industrial seeds/agrochemicals with collective sales of more than US$ 65 billion a year, and accounting for more than 75 percent of all private sector agriculture research in seeds and chemicals. Three of these companies (Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta) control 55 percent of the global seeds market while three others (Syngenta, Bayer and BASF) control 51 percent of agrochemical production. “[ix]

Thus, according to Yoke LIng “a handful of corporations control the entire chain of production from research to the final products. This market power also enables these corporations to get legislatures to pass laws that turn seeds into private “intellectual property”, penalize small farmers for saving, re-planting and selling seeds, and dilute efforts to regulate genetically engineered organisms”[x]

Another issue that is relevant to the rights of peasants, as it impacts directly on the issue of land and land rights- is the strong push for infrastructure investments.  China is pushing for its huge belt and road initiative, and the new silk round; massive infrastructure projects linking land masses and maritime routes in the name of development.  Infrastructure investment is also advanced in the name of a bigger agenda of connectivity; infrastructure projects addressing the need for physical connectivity, while the harmonization of rules and standards, like IPR, address the need for institutional connectivity. As the National Chair of the Commission on Human Rights Ahmad Damanik underscored today, these infrastructure and development projects threaten to evict peoples and communities from their lands.

The idea of land management and administration is being advanced in order to facilitate more land investments thereby giving more lands to the hands of corporations.

There are strong political and economic forces whose agenda run counter to the full realization of peasants’ rights, and who will exert their power and influence to derail our campaign.

I have outlined just a few of the challenges undermining peasants’ rights. These are the challenges that our campaign confronts. Our strong assertion of these rights of peasants is a big contribution to pushing back the repression and the criminalization of peasants. Our strong assertion on the rights of peasants is a contribution to the dismantling of corporate power and the strengthening of peoples’ sovereignty.

by Joseph Purugganan

Jakarta, Indonesia--Peasants, family farmers, indigenous peoples and support groups came together in Jakarta from 27-29 March 2018 for a three-day Regional Consultation, Training, and Meeting of La Via Campesina Collective on Human Rights.

“We are here from Southeast Asia, and East Asia to help strengthen our movements to support our campaign” said Henry Saragih General Secretary of Serikat Petani Indonesia in his remarks to open the meeting. “ This draft declaration is as much a product of research and grassroots struggles” added Saragih.

From Grassroots to Geneva

Saragih traced back the history of the campaign for a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants from 2001-- when the initial idea for at that time an international convention on the rights of peasant’s--was first proposed, to the initial efforts and consultations to develop the text of the declaration which culminated in the Regional Conference on Peasant’s Rights in April 2002. The campaign shifted to Geneva beginning in 2002 as the effort was directed towards the adoption of a declaration at the UN Human Rights Council.  According to Saragih, there have been a number of key moments that have pushed the momentum forward.  The food crisis in 2008 provided a big impetus, according to Saragih with the campaign using it as an opportunity to highlight the issues faced by peasants resulting from the non-fulfillment of their rights.  In 2009, La Via Campesina was invited to the High-Level Meeting on World Hunger in New York where it again pushed the idea for a UN declaration.  A major breakthrough came in September 2012 with the adoption of a UNHRC Resolution 21/19 on the promotion and protection of human rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas.  The resolution put forward by Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba and South Africa provided the mandate for the creation of an open ended inter-governmental working group (OEIGWG) to develop and adopt the declaration. Another resolution was adopted in 2014 (26/26) which renewed the mandate of the working group to prepare a new text for presentation at the second session of the OEIGWG.

Gaining broad support

The campaign has been gaining broad support over the years. In Indonesia, institutions like the National Human Rights Commission have helped to push the initiative forward.  CHR chairperson Ahmad Taufan Damanik who spoke at the meeting, highlighted the importance of the initiative in the wake of what he called the “prolonged agrarian problem” in Indonesia.

In a video message, the Permanent Mission of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations Office in Geneva, called on La Via Campesina and its allies to “intensify the valuable efforts that you are making in order to convince your governments to support the Declaration.”

Focus on the Global South for its part expressed its solidarity and commitment to the campaign as well, and linked it to the current campaigns and struggles against new generation free trade and investment agreements as well as the global effort for a legally-binding instrument at the UN on human rights obligations of TNCs.

Country Context

In preparation for the fifth session of the Open Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG) which will be held from 9-13 April in Geneva, the participants engaged in discussions on current state of peasants rights violations across the region, and to fine tune concrete proposals to the draft declaration.  Among the more critical issues discussed included the debate over State subsidies to agriculture and whether these should be viewed in light of negative experiences of farmers unable to compete with highly subsidized imports; issues around seeds, plant variety protection, and farmers rights; the rights of women farmers and rural women.  

Additional insights were also drawn from country-level inputs.

Paitoon Soisod of the Assembly of the Poor Thailand raised concerns over the criminalization of farmers struggling against Special Economic Zones (SEZs),and the continued conversion of agricultural lands to industrial use.

Ritchel Tamayo of Paragos Pilipinas from the Philippines highlighted the continuing struggle of farmers for agrarian reform and access to agrarian justice particularly for women farmers.

Shushi Okazaki of Nouminren talked about existing policies in Japan that support family farming-the Agriculture Land Act, the Main Crops Seeds Act, Agricultural Cooperative Act, and the price support system- that they use as entry points to push the government to supporting the Declaration. Similarly, Moojin Lee of Korea Peasant League shared on the ‘absolute land’ concept in Korean Law where only farmers are allowed to own and use agricultural lands.  According to Lee however, this concept in the law has been saddled with so many exemptions and loopholes.  Lee also briefly discussed the idea of ‘public commons’, as an approach to advance the public interest embedded in public lands.

Speaking as well on the national agriculture and land law, Socheat Heng representing the Cross-Sectoral Network in Cambodia shared the history of their network and their continuing campaign against the proposed changes to the law as part of a long-drawn struggle against land grabbing and marginalization of peasants in Cambodia. 

A Women’s Caucus was held where the participants ironed out concrete recommendations on how to improve among others the Article 4 on Rights of peasant women and other women working in rural areas.

Moving Forward

A number of key strategies were put forward ahead of the crucial 5th session in Geneva. These include (1) Consolidation of support of governments that supported the resolution.  The campaign hopes to send letters to the different missions in Geneva in time for three key moments- the working group session in April, the procedural discussion in June, and the omnibus vote on the resolution in September; (2) Sending letters to key regional blocs like ASEAN, SARC, non-aligned movement, among others, (3) organizing events and mobilizations on Peasants Rights in key political moments like the WB meeting in Bali In October, the ASEAN Peoples Forum in Singapore, and the Human Rights Day in December.

On April 17th, we will commemorate the International Day of Peasants’ Struggle. On that day, 22 years ago 19 landless farmers from Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra (MST) -- the movement of landless farmers in Brazil--lost their lives fighting for land.

We remember that violent dispersal in Eldorado dos Carajas in Brazil and reflect on the continuing struggle for land of peasants and landless people everywhere. We remember and we salute the continuing efforts of men and women farmers, fishers, indigenous peoples, rural workers to produce food and make the land productive, to nurture the environment, to build communities with dignity, and more equitable and just societies.

And as we remember, we strengthen our resolve to push for recognition of the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas.

To learn more about the massacre of the landless peasants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=106&v=O6_5G3YejPY

Photo: ‘Food First” by Filipino artist boyD (Boy Dominguez) 2015. The image was first used for a poster of Food First (Eric Holt Gimenez) 

Words and Music by Bong Ramilo, 1985, Baguio

English translation: J. Purugganan

To listen to the whole song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLntOIfAchU&feature=youtu.be

Magandang umaga, Ka Ramon (Good morning, Ka Ramon)
Madilim pa’y pabukid ka na (its still dark, yet your farm bound already)
Ikaw ba’y sapat na ang tulog (have you had enough sleep)
Sa magdamag na maginaw, Ka Ramon (through the cold night, Ka Ramon)

Magandang umaga rin, anak (Good morning, child)
Pagod ma’y kailangang bumangon ng maaga’t (though im tired, I need to rise early)
Lupa ay naghihintay at sabik (the land is waiting, anxious)
Sa araro’t kalabaw, ay anak (for the beast and plow, my child)

Ang pawis at luha ay nagsasama (sweat and tears blend)
Sa pagbungkal ng lupang di kanya (in furrowing the land, not his own)
At sa tag-ani’y babahagian siya (come harvest time, awaiting his share)
Kahit na katiting, gagawan ng paraan (no matter how small, will make ends meet)
Nang magkasya

Magandang tanghali, Ka Ramon (Its now midday Ka Ramon)
Kay init na’y patuloy ka pa (you plod on through the sweltering heat)
Ikaw ba’y sapat na’ng pagkabusog (have you had your fill)
Sa ilang subo ng bahaw, Ka Ramon (from just a few mouthfuls of rice)

Magandang tanghali rin, anak (Good day, child)
Gutom ma’y kailangang umahon sa pahinga’t (though im hungry, I need to end my rest)
Lupa ay naghihintay ng dilig (the land is waiting for water)
At sa ulan ay uhaw, ay anak (thirsty for rain, child)

Ang pawis at luha ay nagsasama (sweat and tears blend)
Sa pagbungkal ng lupang di kanya (in furrowing the land, not his own)
Sa kanyang parte’y hindi na makaasa (he can no longer rely on his share)
Tiyak na kulang sa pambayad pa lamang ng utang (that is not enough even  to pay off debts)

Magandang gabi, Ka Ramon (Good night Ka Ramon)
Padilim na’y nasa bukid ka pa (night is falling and you’re still there in the fields)
Ikaw ba’y di uuwi at paubos na ngayon (are you not going home as the light is fading fast, Ka Ramon)
Ang ilaw, Ka Ramon

Magandang gabi sa ‘yo, anak (Good night, Child)
Hapo ma’y kailangang tumuon sa araro’t (my body is dead tired but my plow needs me)
Lupa ay maghihintay ng punla (the land is waiting to be planted seeds. My child)
Sa susunod na araw, ay anak

Ang pawis at dugo ay nagsasama (sweat and blood blend together)
Sa pagbubungkal ng lupang di kanya(in furrowing the land, not his own)
Bunga ng lakas, inaagaw ng iba (the fruits of his labor, stolen by others)
Ba’t di ka bumangon, umahon sa hirap (rise up and overcome the hardship)

Ba’t di mo ituon ang lakas sa paglikha (muster your strength to create)

Ng malayang bukas, Ka Ramon (a future that is free, Ka Ramon)

Bong Ramilo is a Filipino-Australian musician based in Darwin, Australia. Bong is the recipient of the 2018 Australia Council Ros Bower Award for Community Arts and Cultural Development. He was part of the people's theatre movement and wrote songs for the democracy movement during the Marcos dictatorship before migrating to Australia in 1986; he has worked with Filipino and other communities across Australia as a community-based artist since then. Bong is a member of the Asian Movement for People's Music.

Photo: A peasant from Hacienda Luisita shows his irrigation system, a water pump he received from a partner organization. Hacienda Luisita is one of the largest sugarcane plantations in the Philippines and is a landmark agrarian reform case, serving as a litmus test for land redistribution. 2015 February 26. Tarlac, Philippines. Photo by Salomé Gueidon.

From the draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other people working in rural areas dated 12 February 2018.

A peasant is any person who engages or who seeks to engage alone, or in association with others or as a community, in small-scale agricultural production for subsistence an/or for the market, and who relies significantly, though not necessarily exclusively, on family or household labour and other non-monetized ways of organising labour, and who has a special dependency on and attachment to the lands.

The declaration applies to any person engaged in artisanal or small-scale agriculture, the raising of livestock, pastoralism, fishing, forestry, hunting or gathering, and handicrafts related to agriculture or a related occupation in a rural area. it also applies to dependent family members of peasants.

The declaration also applies to indigenous peoples working on the land, transhumant, nomadic, and semi-nomadic, and the landless.

The declaration further applies to hired workers, including all migrant workers, regardless of their legal status, and seasonal workers, on plantations, agricultural farms, forest and farms in aquaculture and Afro-industrial enterprises.

“International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.” Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights

States are duty-bound to respect, protect, and fulfil Peasants’ Rights!

by Karan Raut

India - 12^th March 2018 will be remembered as red-letter day in the history of farmers’ movement in Maharashtra. At the dawn of this day, a red sea of more than 50,000 farmers, laborers, and indigenous people arrived in Mumbai with blistered feet, swollen knees, and bleeding soles from a 200-kilometer walk, yet they were enthusiastic and quite hopeful to get what they came here for. It was an unprecedented peasants’ March—the longest so far in the history of peasant marches in the State of Maharashtra. Mainstream and social media, as well as the entire country’s attention, was on the farmers and the action received support from political parties and civil society organizations across the political spectrum (excluding the ruling party) at a time when farmer’s issues were being largely ignored. 

The Long March, supported by the All India Kissan Sabha (AIKS), commenced a week before on March 6^thin the Nasik District of Maharashtra with more than 25,000 farmers. Among them were thousands of women carrying red flags, banners, and placards, wearing red caps and chanting revolutionary slogans. As the march was moving gradually from Nasik, more and more people joined on the route to Mumbai. By the time the march entered Mumbai’s adjacent city of Thane on the morning of 11^th March, the marchers have swelled to 50,000. No mass protest in the recent past has had such nationwide impact as this peasants’ march.

The protest action was a manifestation of the severe agrarian crisis in the agricultural belt of Maharashtra. Agrarian crisis in India has been an age-old concern, but it got aggravated in the post-liberalization period, by anti-peasant policies of the state. The neo-liberal policies in the early-1990s have had a severe impact on Indian agriculture, which had seen more than 300,000 suicides by farmers, including a large number from Maharashtra. The state support for agriculture and rural development has since been dwindling, resulting in a disproportionate impact on poor agricultural laborers, socially marginalized groups, and small landowners. The public expenditure for agriculture has either slowed down or stagnated, while massive cuts in subsidies in real term year after year have been undertaken. Moreover, there has been a significant reduction of public investment in agricultural research, extension, and irrigation. The neo-liberal policies have benefitted the rich and capitalist farmers and large landlords more than the peasants.

Increased frequency of peasant protests

Prior to this historical march, the country has already witnessed constant agitation and strikes by the farmers against the Central and the State governments. Since the current NDA (National Democratic Alliance) government led by Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) came into power in May 2014, there have been series of protests by the farmers in Maharashtra between 2015 and 2018. Some of the major ones were: Peasant Rights Awareness Campaign in October 2015; Sit-in at Satyagraha (Non-Cooperation) in March 2016; Coffin Rally in 2016; Siege Protest against the Tribal Minister in October 2016; Farmers’ Strike in June 2017, when for the first time in the history of farmers’ struggle in India, farmers in Maharashtra went on strike and decided to stop the supply of their produce. Farmers blocked major highways in different cities, spilled milk on the street, threw away the vegetables, and stopped the supply of agricultural produce to major cities. At that time, the state government assured that farmer’s demands would be met soon; however, the state did not keep its promise. 

Farmers’ concerns: non-agenda for government

Before this long march, in the recent past, the state’s inability to implement what had been promised has resulted in a severe crisis, triggering anger in rural Maharashtra. The crisis aggravated since 2015 when the newly formed State government by the BJP, which also ruled at the Centre, irresponsibly dealt with the farmers’ concerns. In September 2017, when another BJP-ruled State Uttar Pradesh announced loan waivers for its farmers, this triggered a strong demand for loan waiver in Maharashtra and other states of India. During the farmers’ strike in June 2017, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra declared that a farm loan of Rs.34000 crores (approx 5.23 billion US dollars) would be waived off, which would benefit more than 89 lakhs (8.9 million) of farmers in the State. However, this announcement proved mere political gimmick and was never fulfilled.

The currency crunches in November 2016 due to the demonetization (withdrawal of 500 and 1000 rupees currency notes) scheme came as a nightmare for the farmers as they were not able to sell agricultural produce in the market or purchase agricultural inputs for the next crop. The currency alteration also had an impact on the Cooperative banking in the rural area as these banks have been the primary source of crop loan for farmers. The access to institutional credit from these banks was halted and hence farmers had to rely heavily on private moneylenders, resulting into extreme indebtedness among small and marginal farmers.

The granting of an assured support price policy (called Minimum Support Price or MSP in India) has been another lie of the government.  One of the major recommendations of the MS Swaminathan Commission was that farmers be paid at least 50 percent premium over and above the total cost of cultivation. The National Commission for Farmers was set up by the Government of India in 2006 under the chairmanship of an eminent agricultural scientist – M S Swaminathan. The BJP in its 2014 Election Manifesto promised to implement the Commission report but no action has been taken after coming into power. Even though in the Union Budget of 2018-19, the Finance Minister announced that the minimum support price will be set as recommended by the Swaminathan Commission, the Budget was not clear about which cost would be considered. Every year, the Commission for Agricultural Cost and Prices sets minimum support price for selected Rabi (June-Oct) and Kharif (Nov-April) season crops based on three different production costs, i.e. Cost A2 – actual paid out cost, Cost A2+FL –paid out cost-plus imputed family labour cost, and cost C2 – imputed cost on rent and interest on owned land and capital. The 2006 Commission recommended for Cost C2 as a base cost for the minimum support price. However, until today, the government has not come out openly in support of Cost C2 and this issue has been mired in controversy.

Meanwhile, farmers are suffering since they sell their produce at very low prices, sometimes much lower than their cost of production. Because the minimum support price fixed by the government does not even cover their actual cost and the traders never offer the MSP to farmers because there are no effective mechanisms to strictly implement MSP and the private traders take advantage of this situation.

Farmers in Maharashtra are also suffering because NAFED (National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.), an apex organization of marketing cooperatives for agricultural produce in India, always delay in procurement from farmers for at least two to three months after harvest and as a result, farmers fail to get their return immediately after harvest. NAFED procures directly from the farmers at the minimum support price. The procurement centers are supposed to purchase from the farmers immediately after the harvest but they never open on time, and these delays was another major reason that fuelled the crisis.

During the sequential droughts between the years 2013 to 2015, farmers had suffered crop loss, badly affecting crop productivity. Last year again, thousands of farmers in Maharashtra suffered from crop loss due to pest attack, unseasonal rainfall, and hailstorm. Yet, the State government did not announce any compensation scheme that would help to recover their loss to some extent. 

In the tribal belt of Nasik, Palghar and Thane districts, the major demand has been for the implementation of the Forest Right Act 2006. The tribals have been cultivating forest land for the last three generations but the land has yet to be legally transferred in their name.

State response

The Maharashtra government underestimated the strength of the Kisan Long March until it got massive media coverage and public support across the country. On 12^th March, after a three-hour long discussion between the Chief Minister, related Ministry officials, and the AIKS leaders, most of the farmers’ demands and concerns were addressed and a concrete time-bound (six months) written assurance was signed by the State’s Chief Secretary, accepting the demands related to the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA); reconsideration of proposed river linking project; issuance of loan waiver to farmers; institution of rice incentives as recommended by the Swminathan Commission; legal entitlement to and regularization of pasture lands; stoppage of land acquisition without farmers’/ tribal consent; re-issuance of ration cards in tribal villages, and; compensation for farmers who have suffered from natural calamities.

For many farmers in Maharashtra and around the country, this was not the end of the farmers' protests. It was rather the beginning because this will give strength and vigour to many such farmers groups and movements to come together and take their issues with the government more effectively but in a disciplined manner as the Maharashtra farmers did.

States shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination against peasant women and other women working in rural areas in order to ensure, on the basis of equality between men and women, that they fully and equally enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that they are able to freely pursue, participate in and benefit from rural economic, social, political and cultural development. (From the Draft UN Declaration on rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas)

Women play extremely important roles in organizing their communities to ensure food security and sovereignty, and defending lands, territories and environments from destructive investments and development. They have assumed leadership of campaigns and movements for justice and rights in the face of grave threats to their lives and families.

Focus on the Global South recently paid homage to women who have innovated and co-created the foods, cuisines, and food systems that sustain the world, and make everyday life possible in an online exhibition entitled The Hands that feed us. https://focusweb.org/page/women-food-production-asia/

Peasants march to commemorate 20 years since the Eldorado dos Carajas massacre. Photo by Shalmali Guttal - 2016

This article is based on a forthcoming publication by Focus on the Global South, “Towards Human-Rights Based Tenure Governance in Asia: Perspectives, Challenges, and Strategies”

Landlessness and land insecurity are serious global problems. A quarter of the world’s 1.1 billion poor population is estimated to be landless, among them are 200 million people living in rural areas[1]. Rural landlessness is a crucial predictor of the extent of poverty and hunger[2],  and in recent years, there has been a global consensus among international development institutions, civil society, and peoples’ movements that access to and control of land and natural resources are key to not only helping rural households improve their incomes, but also to living with dignity. Yet, although land is life for peasants, small-scale farmers, rural women, indigenous peoples, fisher folk and pastoralists, millions of rural families do not enjoy ownership of, or secure tenurial rights in land, fisheries and forests.

The Asian Context

Across Asia, rural poor, indigenous peoples, workers, peasants, women, youth, fisher folk, and herders face immense challenges in securing their rights to own, access, use, and/or steward land and other natural resources on which they rely for their livelihoods and identities. These include multiple crises arising from destructive infrastructure, resource extraction and resource development projects; climate change; land, water, and ocean grabbing; corporate control of agriculture and food systems, and; the undermining of small-scale food production and provision by corporate friendly policies and laws. These are compounded by the criminalization of dissent, human rights violations, and shrinking space for political participation by poor and vulnerable populations. Small-scale food producers, workers, and indigenous and other local communities who defend their lands, waters, resources, livelihoods and cultural identities face judicial and extra-judicial persecution, are branded “dissidents” or “anti-national,” and have little access to and input in policy and law making that deeply affect their lives.

Persistent poverty and inequality, negative impacts of climate change and disasters, continued erosion of human rights, and shrinking resource bases exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and marginalization. Poverty remains largely rural and its main manifestation is tenure insecurity, i.e. lack of access to and control of land and natural resources. Representatives from peoples movements in Southeast, East, and South Asia have identified the following threats and challenges with regard to their rights to land, forests, fisheries:

• Enclosures, privatization, and land grabbing: New frontiers of land and resource control are being created through agro-export, monoculture and industrial agriculture, land conversions, mining, coal, hydropower, forest exploitation and logging, conservation and national parks, real estate/property development, expansion of townships, etc. Large-scale infrastructure projects, free trade and investment agreements, and regional economic integration are driving forces behind many land grabbing and privatization cases.
• Territorialization: Using the power of eminent domain (i.e. appropriation of resources in the name of public interest), governments create new territories for investments through zoning, ceasefires, peace agreements, and relocation of villages and peoples from uplands to lowlands (for example, in India, Sri Lanka, Laos, Vietnam, Burma, Philippines and Indonesia). New territories of investment include Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and Special Investment Areas (SIAs) that are increasingly visible across the region. In South Asia’s contested upland and border areas, private land concessions for industrial crops are used by the military to control borders. Both physical violence and laws are used to control land, territories, and people.
• Financialization of resources: This is a relatively recent trend that can lead to a systematic erosion of land and resource rights through the transformation of a productive economy into financial products for trade, for example, the fabrication of virtual commodities such as biodiversity and forest carbon offsets, and trading them in financial markets and stock exchanges. The trading of virtual commodities is speculative and negatively affects the real economy, ways of production, extraction of resources, law making, and managing territories. The impacts of financialization are already evident in REDD and Blue Carbon schemes, which curtail the access of peasants, indigenous peoples, and fisher folk to their lands, territories and resources.
• Lack of acceptance of and respect for human rights: In many countries, governments do not recognize indigenous peoples as holders of particular rights. They are viewed as ethnic minorities, their customary rights are not recognized, and there are no legal provisions to address historical inequalities and injustices. Local non-indigenous peoples also suffer from tenurial insecurity in farmlands, forests, river, and marine areas. Overall, governments are reluctant to uphold the rights of local populations but prompt in enacting legislation that assures the rights of large-scale private investors.  
• Shrinking political spaces; criminalization; and erosion of peoples’ rights: More and more, local community leaders, workers, peoples’ movements, civil society activists, journalists, lawyers, and other rights defenders are experiencing criminalization, physical and economic violence, and persecution. In Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, those who stand up for peace, justice and human rights are considered ‘enemies of the state.’ States are not alone in perpetrating violence: domestic, regional, and transnational investors and corporations are equally guilty of crimes, collusion with official perpetrators, and impunity. Since 2013, the Philippines has been considered as the deadliest place for environmental and human rights defenders in Asia.  Most of the victims of violence and murders perpetrated by mining companies, paramilitary, and military forces have been indigenous peoples. The erosion of people’s rights are done through legal-regulatory measures; military dictatorships and imposition of martial law-type conditions such as curfews and arbitrary check points; manipulation of the justice system; physical violence, murder, state and non-state impunity; and creation of fear through threats, intimidation and harassment.

Land and Resource Rights as Human Rights

Many peoples’ movements, organizations of workers, small-scale food producers and indigenous peoples, and civil society activists in Asia have consistently challenged extractivist, market driven development, the kind of land and resource governance such development demands, and the state’s use of eminent domain in the expropriation and control of land, water, forests, and natural resources.

However, governments and international policy makers have placed land and resource governance within instruments of global markets, making land and natural resources into commodities. Tenure rights are framed as ‘property rights,’ and land, water, and other resources are valued based on market prices. This emphasizes the creation of land markets for selling and trading land and natural resources on one hand and on the other, the state’s role in providing a policy environment that will enable these markets to flourish.

Peoples’ movements and community rights advocates are increasingly turning to the human rights framework to build a human rights-based approach to the governance of land and natural resources.  Such an approach would be based on the foundational principles of human rights: they are universal (apply to everyone without discrimination), inalienable (cannot be taken or given away), and indivisible and interdependent (the loss of one right impacts on all rights). This approach includes the three broad bundles of human rights:

• Civil and political rights: right to life and physical integrity; right to privacy and a fair trial; right to participate in civil and political life which covers freedoms of expression, association, assembly; right to vote.
• Economic, social, and cultural rights: right to decent work, right to an adequate standard of living including housing, food, and water; right to health, education, social security, and culture; the right to land and natural resources fall within this category.
• Collective rights: right to self-determination; indigenous peoples’ rights; right to development; environmental rights.

Although peoples’ organizations and small-scale food producers have articulated their struggles for land and natural resources in the language of human rights, they have also pointed to important contradictions in human-rights based tenure governance approaches:

• Individual vs. collective rights; private property vs. community rights: the human rights- based approach centers on individual rights rather than collective rights, though it does recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. In certain cases, however, there are overlapping and conflicting rights claims between different groups of peoples in the same territory. Conflicts are inevitable and the challenge is to find conflict resolution mechanisms to address them. There are also diverse interpretations  about the composition of tenure rights, whether these pertain to full ownership or stewardship, the right to exclude other people from use and management of land and territories, etc. These are often linked to the different forms of tenurial arrangements and traditions that exist in Asian countries and communities.
• Securing legitimate tenure rights through land titles: land titling has been a way to recognize tenure rights, but while it is an important tool, it does not guarantee access, use, and control of land, territories, and resources. Titling can be either double-edged sword, in the sense that small-scale farmers may use their titles to sell and trade rights or inappropriate in the sense that corporations and unscrupulous individuals can manufacture or illegally acquire land titles that lead to land grabbing and resource-based conflicts.
• The right to say no and FreePrior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Communities that experience constant abuse and oppression assert that the ‘right to say no’ to projects, policies, programmes and laws that are antagonistic to their interests and rights, is a fundamental principle of human rights-based tenure governance. This also covers the rights of indigenous peoples to demand for meaningful FPIC, for their right to refuse a ‘development’ project that they deem not beneficial to them, and the right to timely and relevant information that will allow them to make informed decisions. However, in practice, FPIC has been reduced to token or selective consultation with community leaders and the options to refuse a project or even significantly change it, are rarely on the table.

At the same time, the principles of universality, inalienability, indivisibility, and interdependence offer strategic ways to place land, water, forest and natural resource rights as core human rights. Taking for example the right to food: hunger and malnutrition are serious problems that affect the poor, especially women and children. The right to food is connected to the right to life and states as duty-bearers should ensure that the right to food (economically accessible, adequate and safe) is achieved by the marginalized sectors of society through the institution of appropriate agricultural policies, provision of financial resources, and changing of structures, policies, and processes that create hunger and malnutrition. For small-scale food producers, workers, and rural and urban poor, appropriate agricultural policies are secure access to land and natural resources, control over production and market prices, wealth and redistribution mechanisms, etc. Further, as human rights are interdependent, access, use, and control over land and natural resources directly affect the enjoymentof a wide range of human rights, including the right to food. As disputes over natural resources often induce human rights violations, conflicts, and violence, states and private entities such as corporations are duty bound to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights obligations through preventive measures (i.e. do no harm), and enable access to redress mechanisms and justice for affected communities and victims.

The strength of the human rights framework in securing land, water, forest, fisheries and natural resource rights will depend significantly on the extent to which it can be used to resist, rollback, and prevent land and resource grabbing, and progressively realise the rights of small-scale food producers, rural peoples and indigenous peoples--and among these  especially women—to land, natural resources, decent and dignified work and livelihoods,  physical safety, economic, social and environmental security, and the opportunities to develop their potential. The right to development cannot be elaborated by the state, especially in the context of deepening neoliberalism and increasing corporate influence over our societies, economies and policies.

For this to happen, politics have to be brought back into the human rights framework. Land, forest and resource tenure and rights are about elaborating and where needed, redefining social-economic relationships within households, neighborhoods, states and countries, and entail exercises of power by states, societies and peoples. Land and natural resource rights are political rights of people and communities to decide how to use, manage, protect and share land and the natural wealth in the territories they inhabit.  They cannot and must not be placed in markets, or attempt to be realized through market mechanisms.