Introduction

Agricultural heritage is important across the world and is an essential part of cultures and identities. It is also a key part of food security. For many cultures, practices like the use of certain seeds, farming techniques, or even watering techniques are tied to shared culture. Some believe that this knowledge should be strictly protected. Others believe that agriculture should be open to change. This begs the question of how historic culture should be balanced with calls to keep information current and accessible. This influences policy discussions. Recently, the pressure to modernize has increased. This raises questions about how traditional knowledge can be protected while adapting to future needs.

The Role of Agricultural Heritage as Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (IP) is a set of legal rights regarding ownership and use of ideas. Owning an IP means that others cannot use a creation without permission. In farming, IP applies to the tools and technologies used by companies. Recently, Indigenous groups have argued that native agricultural practices should be protected by IP. Indigenous farming practices are not currently a form of IP. If this were the case, Indigenous groups could control how corporations use the forms of agriculture that stem from their practices and potentially profit. The claim has been difficult for native groups to prove. For something to be considered IP, it must be recognized legally. Agricultural heritage has not yet been given this status.

In 2024, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted a treaty that addresses traditional and native knowledge. The agreement is referred to as the GRATK treaty. The treaty’s implementation has been discussed for much of 2025. The treaty says that products using Indigenous knowledge must credit the source, and this past year saw early examples of doing so. Thailand and Mauritius revised their patent laws in August and September to account for this. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and the United States have taken a cautious approach to broader acceptance. Meanwhile, European and South American countries have completed new drafts as well. Slow progress prompted WIPO to extend the mandate of the agreement until 2027, sparking debate over how countries will further integrate it in 2026. Indigenous groups have continued to focus on the treaty, arguing that it is insufficient and should serve as a catalyst for broader recognition and protection of IP rights over traditional agricultural practices.

The results of Indigenous claims over IP are still unclear, but there has been a change in how agricultural heritage is represented in legal frameworks. However, the recognition of Indigenous knowledge as IP is under debate.

The Impacts of Modernization on Agricultural Heritage

The creation of new technologies is a large threat to agricultural heritage. One example of this is in the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines. The rice terraces are 2,000-year-old fields. They were hand-carved by the Ifugao people, allowing for natural irrigation control. As of August 2025, the terraces are under threat. New, unpredictable rainfall has increased. This has led to both erosion and drought on the terraces. The changes in rain damage the terraces and disrupt the water systems. Some parties in the Philippines with less regard for the cultural significance of the site have called for new developments on the land. They want to focus on agriculture, following modern practices that maximize crop output. This has met opposition from the Ifugao people and cultural preservation advocates, who seek to protect both the terraces themselves and the traditional farming practices that sustain them. Compounding these challenges, young people who might have sustained traditional farming practices have largely left for tourism jobs or other work. With fewer people taking part in cultural practices, it becomes harder to maintain areas like the terraces.

This is not unique to the Philippines. It is one example of a broader trend weakening agricultural heritage as a whole. In Ifugao, universities and NGOs are working to combat this. They are trying to include Indigenous knowledge in conservation plans. However, these efforts face structural challenges. Without sustained funding, policy support, and community engagement, even well-designed programs risk being short-lived. Modernization can be a threat to agricultural heritage. Modern agricultural practices give quick profits that cannot be ignored. This economic incentive often prioritizes short-term gains over centuries-old cultural knowledge. Younger generations may abandon traditional practices, which limits both skills and local ecosystems.

There are many threats to agricultural heritage. It is becoming faster, cheaper, and easier to shift to modern forms of agriculture. This shift not only displaces traditional knowledge but also risks homogenizing crops and farming methods, reducing biodiversity and resilience in local ecosystems. It is difficult to ensure the future of agricultural heritage. Culture and heritage are key reasons for the continuation of such practices, but many feel financial pressure to modernize.

Conclusion

Current global trends reveal a deepening tension between the preservation of agricultural heritage and the rapid push for modernization. Traditional farming is at a crossroads. It must fight to survive against industrial expansion, complex new land-use laws, and intense political debates. For many communities, their farming heritage, the unique crops, ancient irrigation techniques, and local food traditions are not just a job but a cultural identity that is currently at risk.

Bibliography

1. Albano, Adrian. “From Rice to Vegetable Terraces: Agricultural Transition and Sustainability in Western Ifugao, Philippines.” Southeast Asian Studies 14, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.20495/seas.14.1_37.
2. Barzallo, Gabriela. “Seed Guardians Resist GM in Colombia: Ancient Corn vs. Agribusiness.” The Guardian, June 26, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jun/26/ancient-corn-v-agribusiness-why-colombias-seed-guardians-are-fighting-the-use-of-gm-crops.
3. Karamat, Imtiaz. “Historic WIPO Treaty First to Address Interface of IP, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge.” Deeth Williams Wall LLP, June 11, 2024. https://www.dww.com/articles/historic-wipo-treaty-first-to-address-intersection-of-ip-genetic-resources-and-traditional.
4. Milchior, Richard. “WIPO Treaty … Does It Really Create a Full New IP Right?” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 20, no. 3 (March 2025): 129–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae081.
5. Tsosie, Rebecca, and Michael K. Johnson. “‘The Seed Is the Law’: Creating New Governance Frameworks for Indigenous Heirloom Seeds and Traditional Knowledge.” UCLA Law Review 71 (2025): 1770. https://www.uclalawreview.org/the-seed-is-the-law-creating-new-governance-frameworks-for-indigenous-heirloom-seeds-and-traditional-knowledge/.
6. World Intellectual Property Organization. IGC Mandate Renewal 2026–2027. July 8–17, 2025. https://www.wipo.int/documents/d/igc/docs-en-igc-mandate-2026-2027.pdf.
7. World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Adopted May 24, 2024. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/ip/gratk/.