Tanzanian small-scale farmers’ organizations and civil society groups are raising concerns over the proposed East African Community (EAC) Seed and Plant Varieties Bill of 2025, warning that the legislation could marginalize farmer-managed seed systems unless specific protections and exemptions are introduced.

In a submission to public hearings on the proposed bill, the Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima (MVIWATA) called for the legislation to explicitly recognize and protect farmer-managed seed systems (FMSS), arguing that the current draft is largely designed around commercial and certified seed systems.

MVIWATA, established in 1993, which has more than 500,000 smallholder farmer members across Tanzania, has previously participated in discussions on seed legislation and harmonization at both national and regional levels, including the earlier draft EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill of 2018.

The organization says the 2025 draft is an improvement over the 2018 version, but argues that gaps remain, particularly regarding the recognition of farmer-managed seed systems and the rights of farmers to save, use, exchange, share, and sell their own seed.

According to MVIWATA, the draft bill is primarily oriented towards commercial seed, with requirements such as registration, certification, variety release, and quality assurance. The organization warns that applying these requirements broadly could inadvertently place farmer-managed seed systems under the same regulatory framework as commercial seed.

MVIWATA says this is particularly problematic because farmer-managed seed systems are a major source of seed for farmers in Tanzania and across East Africa.

The organization maintains that farmer seed systems should instead be explicitly excluded from commercial seed regulations, including formal registration, certification, variety release, and other requirements designed for commercial seed. It proposes the development of alternative, farmer-centered, and community-led mechanisms at the national level.

Sabrina Masinjila, senior program officer at the Society for International Development (SID), told BreakThrough News the concerns raised by MVIWATA were driven by the continued lack of policy recognition of farmer-managed seed systems at both national and regional levels.

She said the concern was also heightened by the possibility that legislation regulating commercial seed systems could contain provisions that inadvertently affect farmers’ traditional practices, including the sale and exchange of seed.

“The aim for seeking changes was to ensure that farmer seed and systems are exempted from any regulation including registration, certification and variety release that apply to commercial seed,” Masinjila said.

But she stressed that simply exempting farmer seed from regulation would not be enough.

“Exemptions are not sufficient as farmer seed systems still need enough support for their continued development, maintenance, conservation and protection,” she said.

According to Masinjila, the push is therefore for the bill to go beyond exemptions and create policy space for an alternative framework that can support farmer seed systems.

“We sought to establish not just clauses that exempt small-scale farmers from the Bill but also clauses that will start to provide opportunities to develop an alternative framework for farmer seed systems which will ensure they are conserved, maintained, protected and even supported for multiplication and distribution,” she said.

Such a framework, she argued, would have wider implications for agroecology, agricultural biodiversity, climate resilience, dietary diversity and nutrition.

MVIWATA makes a similar argument in its submission, saying farmer-managed seed systems play an important role in food security, nutrition, biodiversity conservation, and farmers’ livelihoods. The organization says recognition should not mean forcing farmer seed into the same regulatory system as commercial seed, but should acknowledge the contribution of farmers to the conservation and development of genetic resources.

Farmers’ rights at the center of debate

The debate is also closely linked to farmers’ rights under international agreements. MVIWATA points to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), particularly Article 9, which addresses Farmers’ Rights. Its submission also cites the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), including provisions relating to farmers’ rights to seed.

MVIWATA argues that the EAC Bill should therefore be aligned with these commitments and explicitly recognize farmers’ rights to save, use, reuse, conserve, multiply, develop, exchange, share, and sell farmer-managed seed.

The organization has proposed that the bill state explicitly that it applies to commercial seed systems and does not prohibit or restrict the saving, use, exchange, sharing, or reuse of farmer seed and non-commercial varieties.

Masinjila said the protection of farmers’ rights was inseparable from the wider discussion around seed regulation.

Adding that clauses should be included to protect farmers’ rights as recognized under the ITPGRFA and UNDROP, where access to and control over seed is connected to broader human rights.

“Without these changes, small-scale farmers and their seed system will continue to be neglected, marginalized and criminalized. And this is why we needed to intervene,” she said.

Concerns over the 2018 bill

The current debate is not entirely new. MVIWATA says it was strongly involved in discussions around the 2018 draft EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill, raising concerns about several provisions. The organization says its review of the 2025 version found improvements compared with the earlier draft.

Masinjila said one difference is that the previous bill contained provisions that were compliant with the 1991 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), a plant variety protection regime that civil society and farmer organizations have criticized for being restrictive of farmers’ rights.

“The previous bill contained clauses that were compliant to UPOV 1991. A restrictive Plant Variety Protection regime which has been rejected by CSOs and farmer organizations globally as it undermines farmers rights,” she said.

However, she said concerns around regional harmonization remain under the current EAC Bill, particularly because legislation at EAC level is legally binding on partner states.

MVIWATA also warns that a binding regional framework could reduce the ability of individual countries to develop alternative approaches for farmer seed systems.

The organization is calling for the explicit recognition of farmer-managed seed systems, it has also proposed that farmer varieties should not be subjected to mandatory commercial registration or certification, while alternative mechanisms should be developed in consultation with smallholder farmers, pastoralists, and farming communities.

On seed marketing, MVIWATA wants the bill to make clear that farmers can sell and exchange farmer varieties at the national level and facilitate limited cross-border seed exchange among farmers within the EAC.

The organization is also seeking safeguards against the appropriation of farmers’ genetic resources, including requirements for the disclosure of origin, as well as free, prior, and informed consent from communities. Lastly, they want benefit-sharing agreements where genetic resources are acquired from farming communities.

Fear and uncertainty spread among foreign traders in Kenya after President William Ruto directed authorities to move against small businesses operated by foreign nationals. The move triggered a scramble among some immigrant communities to seek protection, regularize their status, or leave the country.

The directive, announced earlier this month, has particularly unsettled Burundian traders, many of whom operate small informal businesses in Nairobi and other urban centers. Hundreds of Burundians sought assistance and travel documentation from their embassy in Nairobi in fear that the government’s new policy could lead to deportations or further harassment.

The government has since moved to soften the impact of the initial announcement by providing a 90-day window for undocumented foreign nationals to regularize their status, following pressure from Kenyans who said it could lead to xenophobia.

But the clarification was perhaps too late, as isolated incidents of violence and looting involving businesses operated by Burundians were already registered, including reports of traders having goods taken or destroyed occurred.

For lawyer Waringa Wahome, the issue is not just about immigration compliance or competition between traders. She argues that the language used by political leaders can have direct consequences for vulnerable communities.

“What are the risks of presidential rhetoric targeting foreign traders particularly Burundians, Rwandans, and other East Africans, and could such statements contribute to xenophobia, ethnic profiling, harassment or violations of migrants’ rights?” Wahome asked.

“The rhetoric creates a target on their backs”

Wahome, an advocate of the High Court and community legal advocate, told BreakThrough News, that the consequences were already visible in Nairobi’s informal settlements.

She pointed to incidents reported in Mathare, where foreign traders were allegedly attacked and their goods taken or destroyed.

“In Mathare, the morning of 8 September smelled of the horrific incidents of the night,” Wahome said. “On one hand, a hardworking Rwandese had all his chapati and flour for his chapati business violently taken away. For others it was an opportunity to loot from the Ugandan and Rwandese run businesses.”

“The rhetoric against the traders creates permanently a target on their backs exposing them to risk and violating their freedoms,” she said.

Wahome argued that the situation should be understood against the wider vulnerability of Kenya’s working class.

Describing the conflict as “horizontal violence” between economically insecure Kenyans and equally vulnerable migrant workers, warning that ethnic profiling and discrimination could deepen existing social divisions.

“This horizontal violence among this section of an unsecure working class of Mathare was sparked by a sweeping presidential rhetoric calling on the crackdown, mass expulsion and criminalization of the foreign traders specifically running small businesses,” Wahome said.

She also questioned whether targeting small traders addresses the underlying causes of Kenya’s economic difficulties.

“The majority of the Kenyan youth is poor, unemployed and hopeless,” she said, pointing to rising living costs, widening inequality, shrinking civic space, and concerns over corruption and public resources.

“In that context,” Wahome says “a sweeping rhetoric such as that made by President Ruto can only be seen as a statement meant to deflect attention from the structural economic plunder.”

What does the law protect?

The legal questions are significant. Kenya has the power to regulate immigration, employment, and business activity by foreign nationals. The government says its current exercise is designed precisely to establish who is legally entitled to work or conduct business in the country and to give those who are not compliant an opportunity to regularize their status.

But Wahome argues that enforcement cannot become collective punishment.

“The law protects a human being first for being a human being and therefore they have inviolable rights including the right to dignity and to be treated with dignity,” she said.

Kenya ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1992. Article 2(6) of the Kenyan Constitution provides that treaties and conventions ratified by Kenya form part of Kenyan law. Wahome points specifically to the African Charter’s protections of human dignity and its restrictions on the expulsion of non-nationals.

Even where a migrant’s documentation is irregular, enforcement should be individualized and lawful.

“States are obligated to ensure that all migrant workers and members of their families in an irregular situation have non-discriminatory and effective access to such regularization procedures and that the procedures are not applied in an arbitrary manner,” Wahome said.

She added that the 90-day window must not simply become a countdown to mass enforcement.

“Every case must be treated on its own in a fair process which respects the fundamental rights of the migrant workers.”

A test for East African integration

The controversy has also exposed a difficult contradiction within East Africa’s regional integration project. Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda are members of the East African Community, whose Common Market framework provides for the free movement of people, workers, services and capital, as well as rights of establishment and residence. The EAC says its Common Market is based on principles including non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and equal treatment of nationals of other Partner States.

The right to establish a business, however, is not an unlimited license to ignore national laws. The EAC itself states that citizens have the right to establish businesses in another Partner State in accordance with the national laws of that state.

Kenya can enforce its immigration and licensing laws. The question is whether it can do so without turning the enforcement exercise into a campaign against an entire nationality or category of African migrants.

Wahome sees the danger as extending beyond individual traders.

“The small-scale traders represent the majority of the youth population of Africa,” she said, describing them as university and technical-school graduates who have been unable to find formal employment or obtain capital to establish businesses.

“They are the children of the working class of Kenya, East Africa and Africa,” she added.

Further describing the reported violence as “manufactured violence targeted at the poor,” arguing that the businesses at the center of the dispute, selling tea, mandazi and other basic goods have little capacity to determine the structural direction of Kenya’s economy.

“The President is creating a false enemy and fracturing pan-African solidarity,” Wahome said, arguing that poor Kenyans were being encouraged to view small East African traders as the reason for unemployment and the rising cost of living.

The political movement Kongamano la Mapinduzi, issued a statement too,

“Kongamano la Mapinduzi strongly condemns William Ruto’s recent remarks that essentially ordered a crackdown on foreigners running small businesses in Kenya,” the statement said.

“We at Kongamano la Mapinduzi wish to make it clear that an African head of state should be uniting Africans, not turning African people against one another.”

The movement framed the dispute within the longer Pan-African project of removing barriers between African peoples.

“While our shared Pan-African struggle has always envisioned a united Africa without borders, Ruto’s remarks have today set Kenya along the dangerous path of criminalization and harassment of African traders in the name of protecting local businesses,” the statement said.

The United Nations General Assembly has backed an African-led initiative calling for a more accurate representation of the world’s continents, particularly Africa, in maps used in education, public communication, and other areas.

On September 4, the General Assembly adopted the resolution titled “Correct the Map: Rebalancing Global Cartographic Representation and Promoting Equitable Representation of the World’s Regions, Particularly Africa.” The resolution was sponsored by Togo on behalf of the African Group and passed by an overwhelming 164 votes to one, with six countries, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova, Serbia, and Ukraine, abstaining. The United States was the only country to vote against it. Speaking before the vote, Yaryna Ferencevych, deputy US representative to the UN Economic and Social Council, dismissed the initiative as an “ideological project” rather than a meaningful priority for the United Nations.

The vote represents an important moment in a campaign arguing that the maps through which generations have learned about the world have not always provided an accurate picture of the relative size of continents.

Introducing the resolution, Togo’s minister for foreign Affairs, Robert Dussey, argued that the issue was not simply about replacing one map with another. It was about looking at how humanity has been taught to see the world.

“Maps shape our understanding of the world,” Dussey told the General Assembly. “They guide education, nourish the imagination and influence collective perceptions.”

For the African states behind the initiative, the question was therefore not just technical. The way the world is represented, he argued, influences how people understand the relative importance, size and place of different regions and peoples.

What the resolution asks for

Beyond encouraging member states and international organizations to adopt more accurate cartographic representations, he pronounced that the purpose is strictly cartographic, scientific, and educational. “What we are doing here is promoting a more accurate representation of the relative sizes of the world’s regions. I would like to reassure everyone that what we are discussing is fundamentally a matter of science.”

Stressing that the text invites UN entities, regional organizations, academia, think tanks, and technology companies “to cooperate in order to build national capacities, support research and innovation,” with particular attention to developing countries and African countries in map-making, geography, and geospatial technology.

Adding that the resolution “fully respects existing mandates,” creates no new financial obligations, and does not establish any new institutional mechanism at the UN. Education is nonetheless central to it, the text encourages a more critical approach to how maps are taught in school curricula, including an explanation of projection methods, their characteristics, their limits, and their appropriate uses.

Why this matters for Africa

The debate centers largely on the widespread use of the Mercator projection, developed by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569.

The Mercator projection was designed primarily for maritime navigation. Its ability to preserve directions made it particularly useful to sailors navigating long distances. But that advantage comes with significant distortions in the relative size of landmasses.

The further a territory is located from the Equator, the larger it appears on the map. Greenland, for example, can appear roughly comparable in size to Africa, even though Africa is around 14 times larger. Africa covers approximately 30.4 million square kilometers and is the world’s second-largest continent.

The result is a world map in which countries and regions in northern latitudes appear disproportionately large, while Africa and other areas closer to the Equator appear relatively diminished.

Togo’s foreign minister tied the resolution directly to several ongoing African-led initiatives: the Decade for African Roots and the African Diaspora (2021–2031), the Second International Decade for People of African Descent (2025–2034), and the final declaration of the Ninth Pan-African Congress. Correcting “disproportionate cartographic representations” of the continent, he said, is part of ensuring Africa is “appropriately recognized on the international sphere” and of “restoring the dignity of the continent and its diasporas” by correcting “historic distortions that we have inherited from our past legacies.”

Adding, “By adopting this resolution, we’re not just correcting a map, we are contributing to correcting our perception,” he said, adding that knowledge “should elevate,” should “bring us closer, not divide us,” and should reflect the world “in all of its diversity, its truth, and its dignity.”

He rejected the idea that this was a symbolic gesture, “Correcting the map is not simply an aesthetic or symbolic issue, but rather, it is a demand for scientific accuracy and educational accuracy.” Each region, he argued, matters and each people “deserves to be seen as they are” with Africa, “like all other regions,” belonging in humanity’s “universal consciousness,” recognized “in its full reality, its contributions, and its future” rather than “diminished by distortions from the past.”

The overwhelming support for the resolution has been met with broad and positive reception across Africa and in many parts of the world.