Newsletters Nyéléni in English

The international Nyéléni newsletter is the voice of the international movement for Food Sovereignty. Its main goal is to strengthen the grassroots of the movement, by providing accessible material on key issues and creating a space – for individuals and organisations involved in the struggle – to exchange their experiences and share information.

Voices from the field

Newsletter no 65 - Against the tide of industrial aquaculture

Voices from the field 1

Fish cages on Lake Victoria and the Right to Food

Namakeba Village, Buvuma District, Uganda

I live in Namakeba Village and, like everyone here, my family survives because of Lake Victoria. We can’t farm much as we are inside a forest reserve and not even supposed to collect firewood, and the little good land around us got taken over by a palm oil company. So, fishing isn’t just something we do—it’s how we eat, and how we buy the food we can’t grow ourselves, brought in by small traders from Masese and Kiyindi.

Then the fish cages came. Now there are stretches of the lake we simply can’t touch—some owned by one Chinese investor cover more than an acre of water. We used to fish there. Now we’re chased off if we get too close, and every year the cages grow bigger, taking a bit more of the lake each time. Our nets come up lighter than they used to. Some of us go out a whole night and come back with barely enough to sell, let alone eat.

It’s not only the fish—it’s getting anywhere at all. The cages sit across our old routes, so boats now go the long way round. A trip that once took one night now eats up hours more, burns more fuel, costs more money. Fares to Masese have doubled. Since our food comes by boat, that cost lands on every bag of maize, every bottle of oil we buy.

We know exactly what’s happening to us, and we’re not willing to just watch it continue. Fishing is our livelihood and our source of food at once, so when the lake shrinks for us, our meals shrink too. We’re raising our voices because we believe this can be fixed, with fair rules that protect space for people who’ve always depended on this lake. We want our children fishing these waters long after us.

Voices from the field 2

We are Kottaimedu — This is our fight

Fisher families of Kottaimedu, India

We are the fisher families of Kottaimedu. For nearly twenty years, we have fought to protect our source of life—our waters and our coast.

After the tsunami took our homes in 2004, the government moved us here, near the Buckingham Canal—mudflats, mangroves, the waters we knew sustained us. We thought we were safe. Then, in 2007, an industrial shrimp farm arrived next door.

At first, it was just a smell. Then the canal that fed our families turned foul. Then our drinking water turned salty. Our children’s school, barely 150 metres from the pond, couldn’t use its own well. Our skin broke out in rashes. Our kidneys began to fail. We complained. Nobody listened.

In 2019, our women walked out and protested. For that, thirteen of our leaders were dragged into criminal cases—false ones, as two of our people were not even in the country when the alleged “crime” happened, and still we were named. It took the courts until 2023 to throw the case out. Six years of our lives, stolen by fear and suspicion.

But we did not stop. We documented everything ourselves—every encroached drain, every missing treatment pond, every violation. We took our evidence to every office that would open its doors. Slowly, painfully, the walls began to move. An order here. A court direction there. Appeals, delays, more waiting.

On 16 February 2026, we finally won—all aquaculture activity at the farm was ordered stopped for good. We’re now pushing to see it fully enforced, including removal of the encroachment on our land.

This was never about one pond. It was our life as a fisher community, our human rights to food and nutrition, to clean and healthy waters, and dignity. We didn’t wait for justice. We won because we refused to go quiet and fought for what was ours.

Voices from the field 3

When the mangrove disappears, we lose part of our lives

Fisher communities, Carapitanga Quilombo, Brazil

I am from the Carapitanga Quilombo, in the municipality of Brejo Grande, on the north coast of Sergipe State, in the São Francisco River estuary region.

In the past, everything here was healthy. There was no poison in the water; the mangrove was our wealth. We used to fish freely, catch crabs, oysters, sururu, aratu, siri and many kinds of fish. When we came back from fishing, we filled buckets with them and shared them with our neighbours—everyone took food home.

Everything changed after the mangroves began to be cleared for shrimp ponds. People cut down the mangroves, put poison in the ponds and, when they wash them, all that contaminated water goes back into the river. I have seen dead animals in the mud, and the mud smelled rotten. The fish, the crustaceans and many other species started to disappear. Every day there is less space for crabs, aratu, siri and fish to grow because the mangrove is being destroyed. Today we have to walk much farther, or go by boat, to find seafood. Sometimes we cast our nets and only catch enough food for one day. Fishing families are struggling. Before, our wealth came from the mangrove. Today many families depend on Bolsa Família and have to buy food because the mangrove can no longer provide what it once did.

I do not eat the shrimp produced in these ponds because it has poison. I prefer the shrimp and fish that come from nature.

The destruction has not stopped. New areas continue to be cleared, and every time another piece of mangrove disappears, we lose another part of our lives. Even so, I still believe that if they leave nature alone, it will recover. The mangrove can return, and with it the fish, crabs and shellfish. Maybe not for us, but for our children and grandchildren, because they also have the right to live from the wealth that the mangrove has always given us.

Voices from the field 4

Long hours, low pay, no security: a shrimp farm worker speaks

A worker at a shrimp farm in the province of Esmeraldas, Ecuador

My name is Carlos and I work at a shrimp farm. The work here is very hard because I don’t have a set schedule. I have to spend 24 hours a day here and work at night or in the early morning, rain or shine. My boss pays me 400 USD a month. To be honest, it’s not enough because I have my wife and three children that I need to send to school. Sometimes, I don’t have enough money for them to go to school. The work is very demanding and difficult, to the point that my wife and my oldest son often help me out.

I don’t have any social security cover. My children are constantly having health problems. Sometimes when someone gets sick here, it’s hard to leave because we don’t have road access. We often have to wait for boats to take us to town. My boss pays me in cash, and often I don’t get paid every month. Sometimes it takes a month and a half or two months before I get paid. I just have to put up with it because there are no jobs in my town. That’s why I came all the way here, so far from my town.

They use a variety of chemicals here that we aren’t trained to safely handle so we’re exposed to those as well. We often have to handle them with our bare hands without any safety equipment, and the work is very physically demanding. As I said, we have to constantly patrol the pool, especially at night.

Voices from the field 5

How we took our sea back!

Fisher communities, Karimunjawa, Indonesia

I’m Jack, a fisher from Karimumjawa, and my family’s life has always been tied to the sea. We used to catch anchovies and sell seaweed, living in sync with the ocean’s rhythm. I recall the days when the waters provided us with everything we needed. But then, the shrimp ponds arrived and changed everything.

Our whole life was turned upside down in just a matter of days. Men from the company came in, bought up the land, and started ripping out the mangroves. They laid pipes right into the coral reef—pipes that sucked in water and spat out waste. The sea near our houses quickly turned into a brown, thick, and disgusting mess. My kids could no longer swim in the water just off the shore and my youngest was in so much pain when the polluted water gave her terrible itching and blisters all over her feet.

Our seaweed turned white and rotten because of disease. One night, all my fish in the cages died, and it was a huge loss—hundreds of groupers suffocated in the bad water. I had to go further out into the sea to find better water, which meant using more fuel and making less money. As a result, I got deeper into debt. I couldn’t even pay for my child’s school and my family started to fall apart because of the land that was sold to the company.

But we did not stay silent. We formed LINGKAR (“Karimunjawa Struggle Circle”)—fishers, seaweed farmers, tourism workers— determined to fight back. At night, we dove without proper gear to document the ghost pipes (inlet/outlet pipes) destroying our reefs. We faced hired thugs, threats, and intimidation, but we kept documenting, kept posting under #SaveKarimunjawa, until the whole country was watching.

The government thought they could quiet us down by throwing one of our leaders in jail, using a law that’s meant to stop cybercrime but really just gets used to shut people up online. But it backfired, and the whole country got angry. The courts even stepped in and overturned the conviction. We worked together with our friends and journalists who wouldn’t back down and we made the government listen. The ponds were shut down.

The operators went to prison for the pollution caused and slowly, our sea is healing—the water is clearing, the coral is breathing again, and seaweed farmers are daring to tie their ropes back into the water. We’re still rebuilding, but one thing is clear—when people come together, they can hold even the most powerful forces accountable for the harm they cause.

Boxes

Newsletter no 65 - Against the tide of industrial aquaculture

Box 1

The fish that never reaches the plate

“Over half a million tons of pelagic fish that could feed over 33 million people… [is] extracted from the ocean along the coast of West Africa and converted to fishmeal and fish oil.” – UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food[1] 

As the UN Special Rapporteur has stated, hunger is not caused by a lack of food; it is not a production problem. Rather, it results from a food system in which global feed companies exacerbate food insecurity by processing wild fish into fishmeal and oil[2]. In 2024, more than 18 million tonnes of wild-caught fish—equivalent to 23% of total marine capture—was turned into fishmeal and oil. Peru and Chile account for the largest share of global production, though this is vulnerable to El Niño.

While precise data are difficult to obtain for all countries and regions, in India alone an estimated 1 million tonnes of wild fish reportedly ended up in some 50 fish-processing factories in 2018[3].  A further roughly 450 factories, spread across 62 countries[4], account for the majority of the remainder. A significant share of this fish—if not most of it—could instead be used as food for people, rather than feeding a globalised system in which anchovies caught in one part of the world are fed to shrimp in another, only to be processed and sold to middle-income or wealthy consumers elsewhere.

Box 2

Seaweed and marine geoengineering

Just as REDD+ (“reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”) allowed corporations to grab forests from Indigenous Peoples in the name of carbon offsetting, polluters now plan to turn the ocean into a carbon casino, using large-scale seaweed cultivation as a form of aquaculture, combined with marine geoengineering technologies to generate carbon credits.

Geoengineering refers to unproven, high-risk technologies supposedly intended to slow or reverse global heating. Marine geoengineering technologies dangerously threaten ocean integrity, altering the biogeochemistry of the ocean and irreversibly impacting marine communities and ecosystems. Techniques include ocean fertilization (adding nutrients such as minerals and biomass), ocean alkalinity enhancement (dumping masses of minerals to reduce acidification), and marine cloud brightening (spraying seawater to ‘brighten’ clouds). Techniques deployed in seaweed aquaculture include biomass sinking and artificial upwelling (placing pipes deep in the ocean, pumping cool water to the surface) to induce seaweed growth.

Natural and traditionally managed seaweed ecosystems are among the most biodiverse and productive areas in nature. Indigenous Peoples, coastal and fishing communities have rejected industrial seaweed monocultures because of the cultural, economic, environmental and human rights risks. Here, aquaculture meets geoengineering, ocean grabbing and the disruption of fisherfolks’ livelihoods. Seaweed aquaculture combines false solutions which threaten livelihoods while reducing the immeasurable value of our oceans to saleable units, maximized for profit in the bogus business of ‘saving the planet’.

Box 3

Defending the commons is a feminist cause

Industrial aquaculture is a form of extractivism being driven by market-led motivations such as profit maximization at the expense of exceeding ecological limits. Methods of industrial aquaculture rely heavily on mass production and chemical treatment of the water body, leading to large amounts of waste. The local fisherfolk are dispossessed of their right to food sovereignty as corporate power commodifies fisheries.

The World March of Women defends life over profit and protects the commons for the sustainability of life. Ocean and aquatic environments are commons as well, that is why defending the oceans as commons is a feminist cause. As the World March of Women, we place our struggle against transnational corporations at the core of our movement. In our struggle to defend life over profit, we rise against industrial aquaculture and stand with the fisherwomen!

Women’s labor in fisheries

In capitalism, women’s labor remains unrecognized. So, as in industrial aquaculture, fisherwomen face legal and social obstacles. Although fisherwomen work long hours and contribute a large share of the income of the fisherfolk’s family, their work remains unrecognized. Fisherwomen are perceived as ancillary workers. Unlike licensed fishermen, fisherwomen, whose labor is unrecognized[5], cannot access institutional credit or social security benefits.

Even in places where fisherwomen are recognized, they are still not part of the policy-making process, which limits their ability to effect change.

Box 4

Chile for sale: the rise of the salmon industry

Pinochet’s dictatorship paved the way for the salmon industry in Chile. Today, the country is the world’s second-largest producer of farmed salmon—millions of tonnes are processed each year and exported to the world’s major economies. It is marketed as a “sustainable” food, despite evidence of the intensive use of antibiotics and other chemicals, as well as the introduction of non-native species, which are responsible for the destruction of lake ecosystems, rivers, and inland seas.

The government is granting concessions in protected areas in southern Chile without taking into account that these form part of the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS). Marcela Ramos, a member of the Assembly of Island Women for the Waters (AMIPA), is a defender of Chiloé[6] territory, where the salmon farming industry has been polluting the waters for decades. The industry now breeds juvenile salmon in freshwater lakes, transports them to reach maturity in protected areas in Patagonia that were granted concessions, and then returns them to Chiloé for processing. Groups such as AMIPA seek to raise awareness of conflicts and environmental neglect, and develop proposals for community solutions.

As well as causing environmental pollution, the salmon farming industry has claimed the lives of many people who have worked in the precarious conditions that are characteristic of the industry: Between 2003 and 2026, there have been 93 fatalities. The National Network of Women in Small-Scale Fisheries has helped expose the dangers faced by workers in this industry, such as the divers in charge of cleaning the nets in aquaculture pens.

In 2010, the government passed a sea privatisation law which protects the salmon farming industry at the expense of small-scale. It allows the industry to privatise the concessions granted by the state and use them to apply for loans from private banks, resulting in the privatisation of a large part of the sea. All of this is causing conflicts between the people and the government.

The Werkén (messenger) Francisco Vera Millaquén lives in Pargua, just a few metres from salmon feed factories. The expansion of this industry has caused conflicts between families—those who work in it do not want to lose their jobs, whilst others are defending their land and their way of life as fisherfolk.

Werkén Francisco’s community has been denouncing corruption and the influence of the salmon industry on government decisions for years. Today, this is reflected in attempts to amend the Lafkenche Law[7], which protects the rights of coastal communities and their food sovereignty.

Box 5

Industrial aquaculture and public health: An urgent socio-environmental justice agenda

Industrial aquaculture is increasingly promoted as a solution to global food insecurity and as a key component of the “Blue Transformation.” Yet its rapid expansion raises important public health questions that remain insufficiently examined.

The People’s Health Movement affirms the right of all people to nutritious, healthy, and affordable food produced through dignified livelihoods and food systems that minimize harm to people, communities, and the environment. This rights-based perspective underscores the need to evaluate aquaculture not only by its production potential, but also by its impacts on health, equity, and ecological sustainability.

Intensive aquaculture systems often rely on antibiotics, pesticides, disinfectants, and other chemical inputs to maximize production. These practices may expose workers to hazardous substances, contribute to the contamination of surrounding water bodies, and potentially result in chemical residues in aquatic food products. The routine use of antibiotics also raises concerns about antimicrobial resistance, one of the most significant global public health challenges.

Public health considerations extend beyond chemical exposure. Industrial aquaculture may contribute to declining water quality, biodiversity loss, and the replacement of native species, with implications for ecosystem health, nutrition, and food security. Expansion of industrial production has also been associated with the displacement of small-scale fishing communities and the erosion of traditional livelihoods, affecting the broader social determinants of health.

Despite the sector’s rapid growth, significant research gaps remain regarding occupational health, consumer exposure, nutritional quality, environmental contamination, and the cumulative health impacts of intensive aquaculture systems.

As governments and international institutions continue to promote aquaculture expansion, independent, interdisciplinary research must keep pace. Public health evidence should inform policy alongside production and economic objectives. We call on researchers, health professionals, policymakers, and social movements to collaborate in building a stronger evidence base and to ensure that future aquatic food systems advance health, environmental sustainability, human rights, and food sovereignty.

Box 6

Nyéléni, solidarity and philanthropy

The Nyéléni Process, an internationalist expression of social movements, began out of necessity. So did the new framework of Solidarity Philanthropy launched by Grassroots International alongside several global social movements last year. This framework, or pathway, sets new parameters on how philanthropy should function to protect social movements’ financial autonomy.

The 3rd Nyéléni Global Forum served as the starting point to establish Solidarity Philanthropy as a collective strategy between people in philanthropy and grassroots organizations. After decades of working in silos, allies saw the 3rd Global Forum as a chance to confront a key challenge for the sustainability of the Nyéléni Process together—the influence of philanthropy on social movements and how the institution was holding back communities that funders were supposed to support.

As a philanthropic model, Solidarity Philanthropy advocates for:

●   Reckoning with our relationships to wealth. Understanding where money comes from helps us understand where it needs to go.

●   Aligning grantmaking with movements’ goals of financial autonomy. Grants must fit movement priorities, not the other way around.

●   Going beyond funding to deep allyship. Relationships must be grounded in learning and trust. Funders must speak up when movements are under attack.

●   Investing in infrastructure that sustains movements. Physical infrastructure, language justice, secure communications, collective care, and more are essential to power social movements for the long haul.

●   Organizing people in philanthropy in synergy with social movements’ priorities. Solidarity develops through relationships and shared action. Like fishers who learn from the waters that sustain them, we practice solidarity by actively engaging with each other. 

The organizing behind this model seeks to contest the institution of philanthropy. The wealth hoarded in the hands of the few must reach back to the communities it came from. The 3rd Nyéléni Global Forum was an opportunity for movements and allied funders to build a shared praxis together grounded in solidarity and internationalism.

[1]  Fakhri, M. (2024). Fisheries and the right to food in the context of climate change: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, UNHRC.

[2] FAO. Rome. 2026. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026 – Blue Transformation: turning vision into impact.

[3] Scholtens, J., Karuppiah, S., & Jyotishi, A. (2020). A Twisted Trajectory. Samudra Report, 83, 38-42.

[4] Lauren A. Shea et al. Spatial distribution of fishmeal and fish oil factories around the globe.

[5] In the fisheries economy, women work 17 hours every day, and they contribute 48% of the income in the fisherfolk’s family – video

[6] Chiloé is the name of both an archipelago and its largest island.

[7] Passed in 2008 following ten years of collective work, the law recognises and protects the rights of Indigenous Peoples over their traditional coastal areas through the creation of the Marine and Coastal Spaces for Indigenous Peoples (ECMPO).

In the spotlight

Newsletter no 65 - Against the tide of industrial aquaculture

In the spotlight 1

Community-centred aquaculture: Supporting people, food, and ecosystems

Aquaculture (often called seafood or fish farming) is a system of management of aquatic plants and animals in coastal places. Many types of aquaculture have been practiced for millennia and were historically created through place-based observations of the land and water. When done in ecologically responsible ways, aquaculture can be a powerful bedrock for local communities, economies, and food systems.

A responsible aquaculture practice is guided by several principles that ensure good relationships with the environment and local communities. This includes operating a farm at a scale that is appropriate for the given species and in the context of the local ecology. A proper scale ensures that the farm is in harmony with the local ecology and allows for broad community access. The farm should also be owned and operated by the local community so that most of the benefits remain within the community. Being part of the community also means not competing for space or resources with other local harvesters, farmers, and fishers. These practices should also reflect that the waters are a public resource and that their ongoing management should be based on systems of participatory governance.

There still do exist some instances of sustainable aquaculture in modern times. There are practices that are operated at an appropriate scale, managed and operated by people embedded in the community, done in harmony with wild fish populations, and affirming of the waters being a shared, public resource. One traditional form of aquaculture that has been practiced globally is creating fish traps, often from stone and/or wood, in inter-tidal zones. Every community has their own unique traditions and formations they create, but many of these practices have existed for thousands of years.

One such example of ecologically responsible aquaculture are the clam gardens in the pacific northwest of Turtle Island (North America) which have been stewarded by several Indigenous Peoples including the Tlingit, Haida, Heiltsuk, Kwakwaka’wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth, and Northern, Central, and Southern Coast Salish, among others[1]. The scale and ecological responsibility of these gardens are responsibly managed, but the issue of ownership is complex mostly due to impositions from colonial histories. Many of these gardens exist within several jurisdictional lines, between state waters, federal national park lands, country borders, and other situations. These communities have to navigate incredibly complex systems to continue these gardens in their historic locations and people of the waters continue to battle for recognition for their ages old way of life, in land and oceans, rivers, and mangroves across all watery environments in all regions of the world.

In the spotlight 2

Breeding corporate control in industrial aquaculture

From the 1960s-80s, “Green Revolution” programmes in agriculture replaced hundreds of thousands of farmer varieties with a few high-yielding ones. These crops caused massive disease and pest outbreaks, creating dependence on corporate seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. A similar genetic “revolution” is rapidly spreading through aquaculture. 

The expansion of industrial farms of marine species with huge commercial value is causing massive environmental damage and undermining traditional fisheries and aquaculture. These farms depend on new varieties that are increasingly controlled by corporations with interests in feed and livestock.

The mega salmon farms on the coasts of Norway, Chile, Canada, Scotland, and Australia, for example, use salmon derived from a Norwegian public breeding programme. The programme drew on dozens of salmon populations collected from rivers to breed fast-growing and docile fish. With the high-yielding and genetically uniform salmon, production boomed, but the farms spread diseases and parasites with catastrophic impacts on wild salmon. The fish also require huge amounts of feed made of wild-caught fish sourced from West Africa and other shores, with severe impacts on ecosystems and food security there. Today, salmon breeding and farming is dominated by a few companies and Norway’s public breeding programme is owned by a German livestock genetics company, the EW Group.

Corporations also dominate the market for shrimp genetics in Asia, where industrial farming relies on uniform, high-yielding varieties grown in enclosed ponds in high densities and with lots of feed. These shrimp farms are highly vulnerable to disease and therefore require seed[2] certified as pathogen-free. Only a few companies from the livestock sector control this pathogen-free seed market. For instance, Hendrix Genetics of the Netherlands and Thailand’s Charoen Pokphand (CP) have a monopoly in Sri Lanka, with CP also dominating the market for feed. The same two companies control about 90% of the market in Indonesia. In China, two animal feed companies, Haid Group and Evergreen, are the dominant players in its shrimp seed market and are rapidly expanding overseas.

In Ecuador, the world’s top shrimp exporter, the situation is different. Big companies farm shrimp in large, open farms at low densities. To ensure disease-resistance, large populations of shrimp are exposed to pathogens and those that survive are selected for the next production cycle. Shrimp selection has become more intensive and high-tech over the years, and there are some specialist breeding companies, but breeding in Ecuador is still mainly done by the big shrimp farming companies for their own farms.

Industrial aquaculture is a young industry compared to industrial agriculture and livestock, but it follows the same logic of capitalism—either grow or “get eaten” by larger companies—and control over genes is the new frontier in this multi-billion dollar business.

[1] Pacific Sea Garden Collective (2022). Sea Gardens Across the Pacific: Reawakening Ancestral Mariculture Innovations. Version 1. Washington Sea Grant at the University of Washington.

[2] Young shrimp (post-larvae) used to stock farming ponds.

Newsletter no 65 – Editorial

Newsletter no 65 - Against the tide of industrial aquaculture

Against the tide of industrial aquaculture

At a time when governments and corporations increasingly position aquaculture as the cure for the food, economic and climate crises, it is worth asking whether any of these narratives hold. Research shows that shrimp and salmon farming take more food out of the mouths of the poor than they deliver to anyone’s plate. The volumes of monoculture-grown soy and wild-caught fish processed into fish feed are staggering. The overall climate impact of aquaculture with such a globalised value chain is almost impossible to assess. Yet, the Global Seafood Alliance promotes, “aquaculture is uniquely positioned not only to withstand impacts of climate change, but to even help mitigate its effects” – even as one scientific study finds the climate footprint of farmed shrimp comparable, per kilogram of product, to that of beef. A new UN report on fisheries and aquaculture (SOFIA, 2026) describes aquaculture as “greatly contributing to economic development”, citing an estimated sectoral value of USD 391 billion. But it falls silent on the profits captured by a small number of corporations and on the millions of people whose economic base disappears through dispossession from their territories, or through severe environmental pollution.

In response to the havoc caused by industrial aquaculture and its threat to food sovereignty, the Nyéléni Global Forum in 2025 decided to launch a global campaign to resist corporate control, further destruction from this industry and the privatization of ocean and coastal areas. This edition of the Nyéléni newsletter captures some of the work of the campaign.

ETC Group, FIAN, GRAIN, TNI, WFFP

Icon

Against the tide of industrial aquaculture, no 65

1 file(s) 0.00 KB
Download

Voices from the field

Newsletter no 64 – Pastoralism at the crossroads: between struggles and recognition

Voice from the field 1

Evictions of pastoralists in Tanzania

Edward Porokwa, Pastoralists Indigenous Non-Governmental Organizations (PINGO)’s Forum, Tanzania

Pastoralists from Maasai communities are suffering from evictions, threats, and violations of their rights. Here are some examples.

In 2022, the creation of the Pololeti Game Reserve transformed 1,500 km2 of legally recognized village land into a restricted conservation site. The state also developed a systematic strategy of “impoverishment by fines” to drain the community of its only capital—livestock. Pastoralists had to pay to recover their livestock from auctions after the animals were seized for grazing in protected areas. A similar situation occurred around the Losimingori Forest Reserve, where pastoralist access to grazing areas and forest resources was restricted.

Another serious violation took place around Kilimanjaro International Airport, where over 20,000 residents lost homes and rainwater collection tanks, and schools and were forced to accept low “compensation”. Sacred sites, such as Endonyo Olmorwak and social services are now behind airport fences.

This situation has not ended. There are at least 15 new areas proposed as Game Reserves, limiting access to grazing and settlement areas. Additionally, according to a PINGO’s Forum study, the project of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline lacked full consultation and compensation processes and has already had negative impacts. Maasai villages are also being targeted for soil carbon credit projects, which restrict land use for grazing and mobility. In 2025, Indigenous civil society organizations called for a moratorium on these projects, but the proponents continued to push communities and pressure district leaders to sign agreements.

These current and future enforcement practices are only increasing vulnerability, dependency, and long-term insecurity for pastoral communities.

Voices from the field 2

Pastoral Code in Chad

Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, Association des Femmes Peules et Peuples Autochtones du Chad (Indigenous Women and Peoples’ Association of Chad) – AFPAT, Chad – WAMIP Central Africa

Chad is one of the countries that has adopted a Pastoral Code. The Code was sanctioned in 2015, but it was not considered appropriate by many members of society, therefore it was rejected. Currently, the code is being discussed again, but the country’s Ministry of Livestock holds a different view regarding helders, nomadic people and pastoralist.

Despite this, Chad has good practices regarding pastoralism. It is the only country in Africa with a special education for nomadic children. This education system was based on a study done by in 2010 through a collaboration between experts from pastoralist communities, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Livestock.

Chad also has a specific health system for pastoralists, which includes care for livestock and humans. They are combined in the health system to ensure that the needs of the communities are taken into consideration.

Another important initiative has been developed by AFPAT. We combined Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge from the nomadic and semi-nomadic communities and scientific knowledge to create participatory maps that help demarcate and establish land rights, as well as manage and share natural resources. Over 600 community leaders participated, and we managed to protect more than 500,000 hectares, including villages, nomadic livelihoods and areas such as the islands around Lake Chad. The participatory mapping also helped us secure land rights for women, build income-generating activities, and reduce conflicts over resources between farmers and pastoralists.

Voices from the field 3

Land and mining: New struggles for Mongolia’s pastoralists

Ariell Ahearn, Steps without Borders, Mongolia

Mongolia is home to thousands of families for whom nomadic pastoralism is a core livelihood strategy. However, mining development in many parts of the country is generating severe negative impacts for pastoralists.

In Dundgovi Province, a woman pastoralist told us her story. She was born and raised in a place called Gurvanbulgiin Khets, 50–60 kilometres from where she currently lives with her family. She learned everything from her mother, then married a neighbour and started their own household. In her community, livelihoods depended on livestock: “To live well, one must rely on the blessings of the livestock and the land. If a herder works hard, life shines brighter, and livestock give more benefits in return. A person’s life shines among others when they work and contribute to the community.” She taught her children and grandchildren in the same way, and she said they want to return and take over the family livelihood, “but the mining companies are surrounding us and enclosing the pastureland.”

Since the mining companies arrived, she has noticed that drinking water has become scarce, the climate has become drier, and the land has been dug up. Livestock suffer when they are forced to leave their grazing areas: “Tears well up in their eyes, and they run away. When they return to the old pasture, they roll around — even livestock miss their homeland.” Herders are also experiencing threats, online persecution, and intimidation if they speak out against the mining industry.

Their traditional way of life is disappearing: animals can no longer graze freely, and diseases — mainly lung problems — have increased. “We really don’t know what kind of long-term harm it may cause to future generations or to the animals’ offspring,” she told us sadly. She also had to migrate with her livestock, moving more than a thousand kilometres from province to province until they found a place to stay.

Nomadic culture has also been affected, but families are fighting to keep it alive: “Even if it’s far away, we still try to come back and perform the rituals. If it’s a sacred mountain, we try to visit and pay respect, then leave again. For Mongolian herders, preserving this nomadic lifestyle is vital. I don’t think Western-style farming will work in Mongolia.”

Voices from the field 4

Conflict management initiatives in Cameroon

Ali Ali Shatou, Mbororo Pastoralists (Cameroon), Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA), WAMIP Central Africa

Various initiatives have been developed by governments, civil society organizations, and other partners to address agropastoral conflicts and strengthen pastoral governance.

The Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) established community dialogue platforms to facilitate communication between farmers, pastoralists, traditional leaders, and local authorities. These platforms have reduced tensions, promoted peaceful coexistence, and resolved land-use conflicts.

Another important initiative is the Peaceful Transhumance and Development of Pastoral Economy in the Lake Chad Region, which spans several countries in the region, including Cameroon. This initiative aims to strengthen community dialogue mechanisms and enhance cooperation for cross-border pastoral mobility.

A significant policy framework is the 2019 N’Djamena Declaration on Transhumance, which was signed by the governments of Central and West Africa. The declaration calls for securing transhumance corridors, promoting sustainable management, improving coordination between security and environmental authorities, and strengthening conflict prevention mechanisms between pastoralists and farmers.

However, women’s participation remains limited in discussions and decision-making processes. Even when women are present, cultural norms and gender power dynamics often prevent them from contributing to the dialogue. Therefore, other interventions seek to strengthen pastoral livelihoods and reduce economic vulnerability, especially among women. MBOSCUDA supports women in integrating small ruminant production with agroecological farming practices, including crop cultivation and household gardens. Other projects promote value addition, entrepreneurship development, and financial literacy.

Voices from the field 5

Asia pastoralist women’s gathering – MERA+15

Megha Sheth, South Asia Pastoral Alliance (India) and WAMIP South Asia

Last December, more than 350 pastoralist women from nine Asian countries gathered in Guarat, India, for the “Rising Recognition” event, marking 15 years since the MERA Declaration emerged from the first-ever global gathering of pastoralist women in 2010.

This regional gathering was a celebration of pastoralist women as economic leaders, biodiversity custodians, and keepers of knowledge. During our three-day meeting, we revisited the MERA Declaration, through deep regional and subregional discussions. Participation, solidarity, and support allow us to collectively reclaim space, memory, and voice, especially now that it is the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP) and the International Year of the Women Farmer (IYWF). Five themes emerged: 1) recognition, dignity and protection of pastoralist women; 2) defence of mobility, grazing lands and safety; 3) acknowledgement of women’s role as environmental custodians; 4) access to social and economic justice; 5) strengthening of our governance, representation, and leadership.

After the event, we returned to our communities and continued these dialogues, sharing, refining, and strengthening our perspectives. Finally, we adopted the Asian Pastoralist Women’s Declaration: MERA+15, which reaffirms that our expertise must shape land, climate, and environmental governance at all levels.

Our hope is to keep walking together toward and beyond IYRP2026, making sure our voices are heard, and valued. We claim rights over our lives, livelihoods, and territories because it is our way of life.

Credits: Maldhari Rural Action Group (MARAG), South Asia Pastoral Alliance and WAMIP

Voices from the field 6

Scientists in support of pastoralism

Carlos Bolomey, History and Geography Department, University of Tarapacá, Chile / Collective of Agrarian Scholar-Activists from the South (CASAS)

Pastoralism deserves a science that commits to pastoralist struggles. Where pastoralism is practised, scientists looking at these realities must aim to identify the gaps that constrain these communities and prevent them from unlocking their potential. At the same time, those scientists involved in training professionals and teaching undergraduate and postgraduate courses related to rural development and veterinary science must use their influence within their institutions to advocate for the inclusion of pastoralists’ worldviews. For example, this can be done through ethnoveterinary approaches, rural sociology or any discipline that will endow professionals with the empathy and sensibility needed when working in these settings. As such, they will be less likely to reproduce practices associated with the livestock revolution[1], which make little sense in pastoralist contexts.

Scientists working with pastoralist communities should acknowledge and give credit to their heritage, while also sounding the alarm when intensive livestock production co-opts and instrumentalises pastoral knowledge and practices. This is especially relevant when industrial livestock enterprises use labels such as “free roaming” or “grass-fed” to advertise production methods that remain environmentally and socially damaging.

Because institutions often poorly understand these communities, planning can overlook them, leaving pastoral territories vulnerable to land grabbing for conservation parks, mining, or renewable energy projects. Along this vein, scientists who build alliances with pastoral communities should engage directly with these threats and adopt rights-based approaches by socialising instruments such as UNDROP, International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 or national laws that seek to protect pastoral livelihoods.

Scientific work in pastoral territories must remain in communication with the needs, concerns and claims expressed by pastoralists themselves. Science has the capacity to inform public debate and raise awareness about contentious issues that, at first sight, may appear to be environmental or development initiatives. These include, for example, the legal protection of wild predators without consideration of pastoralist livelihoods, the creation of conservation parks that restrict customary land use or sedentarisation efforts. In other words, extractivist science that seeks only to publish academic outputs without bringing pastoralist concerns to the front and centre should be discouraged. Participatory action research emerges as a feasible way to address this concern, since it seeks to foster the empowerment of local actors and to produce socially meaningful knowledge. Meanwhile, science must remain reflective about its own practices. This might involve, approaching pastoral communities through transdisciplinary frameworks that value “scientific expertise” and local pastoralist knowledge on equal terms.

[1] The “livestock revolution” describes both the rapid increase in demand for animal-source foods in the Global South and the transition of livestock production systems from smallholder, multi-purpose models to specialized, intensive, and geographically concentrated industrial production.

Boxes

Newsletter no 64 – Pastoralism at the crossroads: between struggles and recognition

Box 1

A new narrative for pastoralism

The current policy and discussions surrounding pastoralism are full of myths and misconceptions. Such misconceptions apply as much to environmental management debates in Africa as they do to the reform of the European Common Agricultural Policy in the UK and more broadly across Europe. A new narrative could help us to better understand who pastoralists are, where and how they live, and what their needs are.

The PASTRES (Pastoralism, Uncertainty and Resilience) programme has worked to create a new narrative about pastoralism, identifying the core principles that form the basis of successful pastoralism. This narrative emphasises the importance of flexible mobility in adapting to variability and environmental changes. Furthermore, extensive, mobile livestock systems are not necessarily detrimental to the environment and provide an essential source of protein and nutrients. Pastoralists are highly engaged in local, embedded, networked markets. Their local systems of early warning and disaster prevention are highly reliable but require support. Finally, pastoralism does not increase conflict—it is the long-term neglect of pastoral areas that drives it.

Thus, we can define pastoralism as modern, mobile and productive, and an “asset to the world”, with pastoralists as “reliability professionals” who form part of a global “critical infrastructure” of pastoralist systems.

For more info, check the PASTRES programme. This article is based on this content.

Box 2

Pastoralists and climate change

Livestock are a major contributor to greenhouse gases and, consequently, climate change. However, not all livestock systems are the same. PASTRES research distinguishes between industrial and extensive mobile systems, such as pastoralism. Without this distinction, pastoralists are unfairly blamed for environmental destruction, which distorts the policy debate and results in injustices.

Pastoralism can be a low-impact system and can even contribute to carbon sequestration. Pastoralists produce animal products with a low environmental impact for millions of people, using extensive rangelands which cannot be used for other food production without significant investment.

Living with and from variability is central to pastoral livelihoods, however, climate change still affects them. All too often, resilience programmes argue that pastoralists should seek alternative, ‘diversified’ livelihoods. However, these programmes usually imply external interventions, risk modelling and tracking, and early warning systems that rarely work. The information generated is not used, the systems are not trusted, they are poorly directed, and the proposed interventions do not support pastoralists’ own capacities to respond to shocks and stresses.

Nevertheless, major investments are required to support pastoralists in the context of climate change. A processual resilience approach should be implemented that encompasses flexible, mobile livelihoods and is aligned with the resilience-building strategies of pastoralists themselves. This approach requires building on the networks, relationships and social fabric on which pastoralism is based, as well as considering the practices of local reliability professionals. In this way, resilience emerges from the continuous reconfiguration of relationships, both human and non-human, and between people, labour, rangelands, herds, and flocks.

For more info check the PASTRES Project. This article is based on this content.

In the spotlight

Newsletter no 64 – Pastoralism at the crossroads: between struggles and recognition

The road towards pastoralists’ rights

In the context of multiple global crises, tensions arising from environmental changes, land grabbing and agri-food systems are affecting pastoralism. Promoting, preserving and advocating for the protection of rights is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for ensuring the sustainability of pastoralist families worldwide. To this end, over the past few decades, pastoralist organisations and their allies have been raising the profile of pastoralism in various global forums.

In the long struggle for pastoralist rights, two international instruments emerged to protect rural people, including pastoralists. The first is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007. It is a key legal instrument for protecting the core elements of pastoral governance, including territory, collective identity and customary institutions, leadership and law, to the extent that pastoralists identify themselves as Indigenous Peoples. The UNDRIP also includes ‘process rights’, establishing special participation and consultation procedures for the implementation of large-scale projects that could affect the land and territories of Indigenous Peoples. The aim is to ensure self-determination within development programmes.

The second instrument is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), which was adopted in 2018. UNDROP is currently the only instrument of international law that explicitly covers almost all definitions of pastoralism. It calls on states to respect, protect and fulfil the rights and exercise of these rights, free from any kind of discrimination, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that non-state actors respect these rights. The declaration also ensures the right of mobile pastoralists to land, territories and other natural resources, as well as their management. UNDROP considers environmental integrity not as a background condition, but as a core prerequisite for the exercise of all other rights. States shall take appropriate measures to promote and protect traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Furthermore, UNDROP recognises customary tenure systems and protects pastoralists against arbitrary displacement and eviction, ensuring their right to traditional grazing lands and migration routes. On this last point, UNDROP establishes freedom of movement, as well as the state’s obligation to facilitate mobility and address transboundary tenure issues. Another important issue it addresses is the right to food and food sovereignty, including participation in relevant decision-making processes on food policies. Lastly, this instrument includes the right to access education, participation, association, information and justice, particularly for women.

Mobile pastoralists can use the UNDROP as a legal and political tool to strengthen their protection and visibility. Acknowledging these rights is also important for designing concrete advocacy strategies to achieve effective implementation.

Another recent milestone in the recognition of pastoralists occurred at the Nyéléni Forum in Kandy, Sri Lanka, in 2025. Although pastoralists have been included in alliances, alongside other groups, such as peasants, family farmers and fisherfolk, in the discourse on food sovereignty since 2007, they have not fully engaged with it. Last year, over 700 participants from around the world gathered in Kandy to develop a Common Political Action Agenda (CPAA). Following the World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples & Pastoralists (WAMIP) consultations and lobbying efforts, pastoralist perspectives were incorporated into Sections 3 and 4 of the CPAA, as well as the Final Declaration. The Kandy Declaration guides struggles for food sovereignty, health, a social and solidarity economy, climate and gender justice, and people’s rights. It recognises pastoralists as guardians and defenders of the commons, wild flora and fauna, and calls for the strengthening of their rights and movements globally in order to confront the impunity and power of transnational corporations and other exploitative actors.

The Nyéléni Forum provided a collaborative space in which to develop key elements of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP) in 2026, including the Global Action Plan, regional and global activities, and communication strategies and messages. The aim of celebrating the IYRP is to raise public awareness of the societal value of rangelands and pastoralists, to promote pastoralist knowledge and innovation and to encourage coalition building. The IYRP also seeks to advocate for policies and legislation that support the sustainable use of rangelands and the livelihoods of pastoralists. To this end, regional and targeted meetings (e.g. women and young people) have been taking place throughout the year to develop proposals and future courses of action.

Following the conclusion of these regional processes, Mongolia will host the Global Pastoralist Gathering and Conference in August, which will bring together around 300 delegates from pastoralist organisations across 102 countries. During the Global Pastoralist Gathering the regional outcomes will be consolidate and validated, elevating them to the level of global policy. The event will also generate the Supporting Declaration for Joint Action from civil society organisations, scientists and governments. This declaration will include policy, research, financing, capacity building and assistance commitments at national and regional levels. The final documents will be presented at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP 17), alongside other events organised to promote dialogue with parties and partners and to mobilise commitments for follow-up actions.

Progress in recognising and promoting the rights of pastoralists has been gradual and sustained over time and new developments must continually be driven forward.

Newsletter no 64 – Editorial

Newsletter no 64 – Pastoralism at the crossroads: between struggles and recognition

Pastoralism at the crossroads: between struggles and recognition

Pastoral ecosystems are found in areas with the most extreme agroecological conditions on the planet. There, since ancient times, pastoralist communities have adapted livestock husbandry to the cycles of nature, producing food, stewarding biodiversity, and sustaining life where others cannot.

Today, climate change and deepening environmental crises are making life and production in these territories increasingly difficult. Meanwhile, pastoralist communities face escalating violence, dispossession, and displacement driven by land grabbing, extractivist projects, infrastructure expansion, industrial agriculture, and even conservation schemes imposed without free, prior, and informed consent.

In response, pastoralist organizations around the world are building powerful alliances, reclaiming collective control over lands and commons, developing innovative strategies and forging scientific collaborations that center—rather than erase—local and ancestral knowledge. Together, communities and allies are producing evidence to confront corporations that plunder community resources and demanding binding policies and rights that protect pastoralist peoples and territories.

In this context, the declaration of 2026 as the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists is an important recognition of the crucial role pastoral ecosystems and pastoralist communities play in sustaining life on the planet. This year should go beyond mere recognition. It must become a political turning point—a moment to confront ongoing injustices, deliver long-denied rights, and amplify the struggles, knowledge, and transformative power rising from pastoralist communities across the world.

World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples & Pastoralists (WAMIP)

Icon

Pastoralism at the crossroad, no 64

1 file(s) 0.00 KB
Download

Voices from the fields

Newsletter no 63 – Rethinking global trade in a time of geopolitical tensions

Voices from the field 1

Zainal Arifin Fuat, Serikat Petani, Indonesia

Current geopolitical and geo-economic tensions are reshaping trade relations and food systems across Southeast Asia. Trade policy is increasingly used as a strategic tool by powerful economies, placing pressure on countries in the region to open markets and adjust domestic regulations. US reciprocal tariff policies affect Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia, which are urged to negotiate concessions to maintain export market access. These developments carry significant implications for agriculture and rural livelihoods, particularly for small-scale food producers facing volatile prices and unequal market access.

Indonesia’s Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) with the US illustrates the asymmetrical nature of emerging trade arrangements. While Indonesia is expected to increase imports of US agricultural commodities such as soybeans, wheat, and beef, Indonesian exports remain subject to tariffs and changing trade provisions that would favor the U.S but without equivalent guarantees for Indonesia. The agreement also obligates Indonesia to align with certain US trade restrictions toward other countries, raising concerns for state and food sovereignty.

For small-scale food producers across Southeast Asia, reciprocal tariff pressures and trade liberalization will intensify import competition, depress farm-gate prices, and weaken local food systems. These dynamics risk deepening dependency on global markets and undermining the ability of states to protect domestic agriculture. Defending food sovereignty requires reclaiming policy space to protect peasants, regulate imports, and strengthen local and agroecological food systems.

The conflict in West Asia, though geographically distant, significantly impacts Indonesia through soaring production costs. Rising global oil prices affect production and peasant welfare, as well as distribution by peasant cooperatives. Since oil is vital to food production and distribution for farming families, fuel price increases directly threaten agricultural viability.

Indonesian agriculture remains in transition from conventional to agroecological systems, meaning fertilizers are not yet fully produced domestically. High reliance on imported fertilizers substantially increases production input costs. Fuel price surges will destabilize food prices. With government food reserves still not sovereign, those most affected will be urban communities and peasants lacking sufficient food stocks. Food sovereignty and agroecological agriculture are essential responses to these cascading crises.

Voices from the field 2

Jose Maria Oviedo, National Union of Costa Rican Agricultural Producers (UNAG), Costa Rica / CLOC-La Vía Campesina

From a geopolitical perspective, the war in Iran highlights that the United States believes the world should belong to them and that they must hold power over all nations. They justify attacking Iran by claiming a need to destroy the region’s military capabilities, especially ballistic missiles, and to eliminate nuclear weapons. They also insist on changing Iran’s regime for supporting what they label as Western adversaries.

We have seen how the US believes that America is synonymous with the United States, where any government that disagrees with US policies must be intervened upon or invaded. For instance, Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela serves as a recent example. Countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Panama have all faced threats for not adhering to American directives.

Economically, the conflict in the West Asia — a region producing twenty percent of the world’s oil—has serious implications. Rising oil prices could lead to global inflation and even famine due to the significant impact on economies, including China’s. With China as a major wheat producer, shortages in grains could result from this situation, exacerbating food scarcity.

We argue that the US empire is collapsing. Historical examples, like Jimmy Carter’s attempts at positive alliances with China in 1979, contrast sharply with the US focus on global warfare. The financial toll of these wars has reportedly cost the American public 300 billion dollars, which has not been invested in the US or in community development globally.

Economically, we anticipate a significant US fiscal deficit (government spending higher than tax income), along with increased tariffs on exports to the US, particularly affecting Central America. As many countries in our region depend on oil imports, inflation poses a critical challenge. The depreciation of the dollar and efforts to appreciate it further threaten to escalate global inflation, making the situation even more precarious for nations reliant on imported oil.

Voices from the field 3

Andoni García, Euskal Herriko Nekazarien Elkartasuna – EHNE Bizkaia, Spain

The EU’s trade policy, starting with the General Agreement on Tariffs Trade (GATT) and the inclusion of agriculture and food in the WTO, has been decisive in agricultural and food policy and has had devastating consequences for small farmers. This subordination eliminated the market and price regulation instruments that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) contained until 1992. Despite the WTO’s failure, the EU has pursued Free Trade Agreements without restraint, where agriculture and internal markets have been bargaining chips.

Opening to international markets, reducing tariffs, lowering prices for farmers, and the EU’s aggressive agroexport policy has caused a severe reduction in millions of small farmers. From 2013 to 2023, five million farms were lost in the EU. The EU and its agroexport policy have been directly responsible for speculative escalation on food globally. The agricultural model in the EU is increasingly agroindustrial and based on economies of scale.

Yet the EU is also less food self-sufficient today, as its food sovereignty and strategic autonomy are subordinated to Free Trade Agreements and the economic interests of elites embedded in globalization. In the previous legislature, the EU addressed how to respond to climate, environmental, biodiversity, energy, and food crises through the European Green Deal, Farm to Fork Strategy, and Biodiversity initiatives—though without questioning its trade policy.

The fragility of these approaches and their contradiction with international trade lobbies has become evident in the new geopolitical situation. The EU is backtracking on its political stance to address crises and strongly pursues Free Trade Agreements to project strength globally, yet this crumbles when its subordination to the US in decision-making becomes apparent. The European Commission has proposed, for the EU budget from 2028 onward, increasing military spending while decreasing support for farmers. The CAP and environmental protection policies are rapidly retreating.

Additionally, the European Commission has accelerated Free Trade Agreements, disregarding European Parliament decisions and widespread farmer opposition. And now, the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, triggering a war with global repercussions, have sparked fierce speculation on fuel, production costs, and food—again exposing risks to food sovereignty, food access, and the fragility of globalized food systems caused by EU policies.

Voices from the field 4

Annette Hiatt, National Family Farm Coalition/Land Loss Prevention Project, USA

Multilateral and international trade agreements often heavily impact small producers, but do not benefit or engage small producers. Many small farmers, such as those in North Carolina (southeast region of the US), are not directly involved in international trade, but the decisions made behind closed doors at the international level to shape and influence power relationships have a direct impact on those same growers and the communities they live in.

In January, it was estimated that trade tariffs could have a devastating impact on North Carolina’s agricultural economy with $1.2 billion in revenue losses and a possible loss of 8000 jobs. In the absence of price support for small-scale producers, the erratic use of trade tariffs can mean smallholders get further pitted against large-scale corporate agriculture for access to domestic markets.

More than 50% of North Carolina farms operate on less than fifty acres and more than 50% of farmers make less than $10,000 annually from farming. These are not the farmers engaging in international export, but often are the bedrock of local food systems feeding their communities. But they feel, deeply, that groceries cost more, and the costs for inputs, like fuel and fertilizer are rising. With farmers’ costs of production systematically exceeding the prices they are paid, mounting farm debt is pushing our small producers—the root of our rural communities—off the land. Those same small farmers hold the key to resilience and community building but are treated like pawns in a game and there is little value placed on production that also builds our local economies. Trade policy should strengthen the livelihoods of our small farmers and rural communities, facilitate land access and food sovereignty, and allow for stewardship that supports resilient and agroecological food production in the USA and abroad.

Boxes

Newsletter no 63 – Rethinking global trade in a time of geopolitical tensions

Box 1

A new international trade framework that works for all

At the 3rd Nyéléni Global Forum held in September 2025 in Sri Lanka, La Via Campesina laid out the essential principles for a Global Framework on Agricultural Trade Based on Food Sovereignty.

Guided by the foundational definition of food sovereignty established at the 2007 Nyéléni Global Forum and grounded in international human rights law, this framework articulates an ethical paradigm for trade that prioritizes human dignity, environmental justice, and democratic governance of food systems at all levels—local, regional, and global.

It asserts that all trade mechanisms must be designed to respect the inalienable rights of peoples and nations to determine their own agricultural and food policies, recognizing food as a fundamental human right rather than a commodity.

It firmly emphasizes that trade mechanisms shall neither be weaponized nor subordinate basic rights to commercial interests. Instead, trade shall be reconstituted as an instrument of mutual benefit, replacing exploitative practices with equitable exchange and shared prosperity among nations.

Integral to this vision is the commitment to protecting the planet by preserving biological diversity and respecting planetary limits, recognizing the crucial roles of Indigenous Peoples as custodians of ecosystems, and advancing regional food systems alongside agroecological methods rather than corporate-controlled supply chains.

It insists that such a global trade framework must be inclusive, transparent, equitable, and empowering; it shall prioritize and protect small-scale food producers (farmers, farmworkers, fishers, pastoralists) and food system workers, Indigenous Peoples, and historically marginalized groups, with particular attention to women and gender minorities.

It calls for a system of trade governance that ensures decent incomes and safe working conditions across food systems, democratic participation in trade decision-making, public accountability in market operations, and strong market regulation.

A global framework for agricultural trade should lead to a systemic transformation of trade relations to realize food sovereignty, climate justice, and social equity for both present and future generations. It affirms that the implementation of these principles shall be measured by their concrete advancement of human rights, environmental protection, and economic and social equity for all people.

Box 2

Global finance and trade bodies enabling the aggression on oceans, rivers, and fisher peoples

Imperialistic nations’ relentless accumulation of wealth is not only exploiting and expropriating the historical, traditional and Indigenous customary homelands of fisher peoples and coastal communities, but is simultaneously annihilating their  sovereign rights over lands, waters and fisheries, ethnically cleansing and violently uprooting their ways of life, their socio-ecological identities and their cultural belonging from coasts, oceans, rivers, inland waters, mangroves, islands, seas and all their traditional territories.

Ocean and land grabbing, including fisheries, has accelerated through extractive industries (mining, oil, gas); destructive industrial fishing; mega infrastructure projects (waterways, industrial wind farms, pipelines, smart cities, reclamation, port construction); financialized conservation schemes like 30×30 and OECMs (Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures); marketization and privatization of nature; and corporate industrial aquaculture (fish factories or blue foods).

Narratives such as “blue growth”, “blue economy”, and “blue transformation” promise sustainability but accelerate grabbing and amount to greenwashing. These initiatives are embedded into national economies through blue finance programs, binding nations to fiscal conditionalities that subordinate sovereignty to transnational capital, reducing even democratically elected states to “rentier states” leasing oceans for corporate profit. This drives the climate crisis and the criminalization of fisher peoples, who resist commodification of oceans, fisheries, and coasts and advocate at all levels against false solutions and territorial grabbing under fraudulent “green” or “blue” claims.

The WTO, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and free-trade agreements have been used to dismantle national policies that protected people’s sovereignty over natural resources and local markets.

Movements such as the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) denounce those who persistently push this agenda, including large international environmental organizations, the World Bank, regional development banks, and corporations; and call for genuine community-led, rights-based development shaped by fisher peoples.

They also remain committed to engaging in legitimate multilateral policy platforms on food, fisheries, agriculture, climate, biodiversity, and human rights to advocate for their political autonomy and customary governance. WFFP and others recognize the FAO, the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), the Committee on Fisheries Subsidies (CFS), and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) as the appropriate UN bodies for global governance in which social organizations actively participate.

Box 3

The peoples of the seeds confront the tyranny of global trade

From January 19 to 21, 2026, the Latin American Seed Collective hosted the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) in Cartago, Costa Rica, to “highlight the urgency of defending the relationship between peoples and their fundamental crops and seeds”—an ontological relationship dating back to time immemorial, that is crucial for leading humanity and the planet into the future.

The PPT heard about the threats faced by various communities around the world in their efforts to preserve and reproduce their seeds independently of the market, intellectual property restrictions, and biological and digital technologies.

The structure of politics —the PPT explains— has led to food and nutrition being progressively transformed into a sector of the economy, where everything related to sustenance is separated from people’s actual lives and becomes a part of the global market. Oligopolies seek to turn people into a homogeneous mass of consumers, and natural diversity into profitable commodities.

Now that trade is also being used as a weapon of war, an initiative like this is vital.

“The peoples of the seeds,” says the TPP, is a cross-cutting term that transcends borders and refers to those facing diverse yet overlapping and complementary challenges in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. If we do not view it this way, peoples that still care for their seeds and crops find themselves fragmented in the face of the brute force with which global trade is being restructured. In the face of the dismantling of international law, peoples with their seeds can bring sustenance everywhere, challenging not only global capitalism and supply chains, but also the commodification of the foundations of life.

Statement by the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal.

Box 4

MC 14 Collapses—that’s good!

The WTO’s 14th Ministerial conference (MC 14) held in Yaoundé, Cameroon, has collapsed, without even a Ministerial Declaration. Negotiations on the e-commerce and TRIPS Non-Violation Complaints moratoria, fisheries subsidies, agriculture, WTO reform and a Least Developed Countries (LDC) package have been deferred to the General Council in Geneva.

The collapse is a welcome victory in a larger battle. Although many developing countries refused to let the US and its cohorts advance their agendas through the deception of multilateralism, this is not a straightforward rebellion of the Global South. Many South countries remain wedded to the logic of free trade, advancing proposals that undermine food sovereignty and benefit agribusiness at the expense of working people and small-scale food providers.

For 30 years, wealthy countries have used the rhetoric of rules-based trade and reciprocity, promises of increased development aid, and outright bullying to break alliances among South countries and extract greater concessions from them. WTO rules have always been skewed in favour of former colonizing powers. They lock in outcomes that favour their economies, their elites and their businesses, and consolidate transnational corporate power in food systems, public health and all sectors vital for life with dignity.

But even if competition were perfect and power games eliminated, the WTO framework is unacceptable. We reject the premise that all things on earth and our labour should be treated as merchandise, and a vision of human relations based on perpetual competition.

It is futile to expect any meaningful reform of the WTO that will advance the well-being, rights, aspirations and needs of the working peoples of the world. It is also damaging and dangerous for participatory democracy and accountability, since in too many countries, trade-investment negotiations and agreements are not subject to domestic scrutiny.

While we intensify our core demands of ending the WTO, we also need to use effectively and forcefully the entire body of international human rights law and our governments’ human rights commitments to challenge the power of the WTO over our domestic policies. The rights of working people and small-scale food providers cannot be traded away for corporate profit. We want food sovereignty, not free trade!

For more info read the Yaoundé Declaration: The WTO And Free Trade Cause Hunger, Poverty And Inequality.