INTRODUCTION
At its heart, the debate over the Arusha Protocol in Uganda represents a fundamental tension
between two visions of agriculture. On one side is the goal of stimulating commercial plant
breeding through strong intellectual property rights. On the other is the need to protect the rights
and traditions of millions of smallholder farmers who rely on saving and exchanging seeds.
The protocol, which finally entered into force in November 2024, is designed to create a regional
system for protecting new plant varieties, encouraging breeders to innovate by granting them
exclusive rights to commercialize their varieties. For a country like Uganda, where agriculture
employs over 72% of the workforce, this could be a pathway to greater productivity and food
security.
However, the path to ratification is fraught with valid concerns that give weight to Uganda’s
hesitancy.
Key Arguments for Uganda’s Hesitancy to Ratify
Uganda’s delay in ratifying the Arusha Protocol can be seen as a cautious and strategic pause, informed by several critical issues raised by civil society and experts.
Sovereignty and Control Over Plant Varieties: A major point of contention during the protocol’s negotiation was the fear that it would strip national governments of their power. The original draft proposed a centralized system where a breeder’s right granted by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) would automatically be valid in all member states. Uganda was among the nations that pushed back, leading to an amendment that allows a “Contracting State” to refuse the grant within its territory. However, questions remain about how this right to object would work in practice. Uganda may be waiting for the operational regulations to clearly define this mechanism to ensure its government retains the final say over what plant varieties are protected within its borders.
Alignment with UPOV 1991 and Its Implications: The Arusha Protocol is based on the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). This system is designed for industrialized agricultural systems and is viewed with skepticism by many developing nations. It strengthens breeders’ rights significantly, which can restrict the long-standing practice of farmers saving, reusing, and exchanging protected seeds. For Uganda, where farmer-managed seed systems are prevalent, this could have a profound and disruptive impact on rural livelihoods and traditional agricultural practices.
Concerns Over a Corporate-Driven Agenda: The process of creating the protocol raised alarms. Civil society organizations, such as the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), which represents millions of small-scale farmers, reported being excluded from the negotiations. This has fueled the perception that the protocol is driven by the interests of multinational seed companies seeking to privatize seed varieties and expand a commercial, industrial agriculture model across Africa, potentially at the expense of smallholder farmers.
Lack of National Capacity for Implementation: Ratifying a treaty is only the first step. Implementing it effectively is another challenge entirely. Experts have noted that ARIPO itself has limited experience in examining plant breeder’s rights applications, a task that requires specific knowledge of local conditions. A variety that is stable in one country might not be stable in Uganda’s diverse climates and soil types. Uganda would need to build significant technical and administrative capacity at the national level to properly examine applications, exercise it’s right to object, and manage the new system, which is a costly and time-consuming undertaking.
Uganda’s Current Position: A Strategic Delay?
Despite these concerns, Uganda has not entirely dismissed the protocol. There is a clear recognition of its potential benefits. In 2016, the government confirmed it was in the process of signing the protocol, acknowledging that plant variety protection is a key tool for agricultural development. The former Registrar General has also highlighted how the system can incentivize breeding and improve access to improved varieties for farmers.
By not being among the first to ratify, Uganda is taking a “wait-and-see” approach. The protocol only became operational in November 2024 after four countries (Cape Verde, Ghana, Rwanda, and São Tomé and Príncipe) deposited their instruments of ratification. Uganda can now observe how the system functions in these pioneering states, how the right to object is implemented in practice, and what the real-world impacts are on farmers and agricultural innovation before making its own final decision.
