State of human and institutional capacities

It is with great pleasure that I have contributed to The Third Report on The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture as lead author of Chapter 5 on The state of human and institutional capacities (pp: 181-254), written with the lovely help of the cool women Ana Bedmar and Barbara Pick with contributions from Khaled Abulaila, Shakeel Ahmad, Sylvain Aubry, Martin Brink, Marc de Wit, Elizabeth Fernández, Euriel Godebert, Aluana Gonçalves de Abreu, Susanne Gura, Ryusuke Kawamura, Dan Leskien, Francisco López, Lorenzo Maggioni, Mario Marino, Kent Nnadozie, Sarah Sensen, Imke Thormann, Álvaro Toledo and Isabelle Winkler during revision. Thanks guys!

“…This report on the status of the conservation, management and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) is based primarily on information provided by 128 countries and four regional and 13 international research centres. It covers two reporting cycles over the period from 2012 to 2022. Key sources of information for the report include the data, reports and so-called summative narratives provided by countries through their National Focal Points, as well as thematic background studies and other relevant information. It serves as a follow up to The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (SoW2), published in 2010…”

While this is a rather different exercise than, say, writing political ecology and analysing extractive systems from the perspective of pushing for paradigm change from below, I am of the firm opinion that change happens – must happen – at all scales; and that knowing what happens and how within all echelons helps the critical mind observe patterns and define pressure points, useful anywhere else in the system.

Collaboration with the FAO has been a central element in my work since 2011, when I first helped ‘Identifying the Potential Monetary and Non-monetary Benefits Arising from the Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources under the Multilateral System of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture‘ for the Secretariat of the Plant Treaty. It is work and experiences, as well as colleagues that I very much enjoy.

See also ‘Governing seed for food production: The international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture‘, which I wrote for the South Centre.

These language games – institutional, political, academic, activist, etc. – are likely less effective if primarily played in segregation, which is to say that cross-fertilisation and inter-institutional exchanges and intra-institutional understanding and engagement are enriching elements for what concerns intellectual development.

From guerilla gardening in urban spaces and forest gardens in the Amazon, through collective ownership-based market gardens, CSAs, PGSs, small-, middle-, and large-scale agroecological farming through to NGOs and IGOs, I glean whatever I can to understand the state of the world in all its dimensions, not just the The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and, more to the point here, The state of human and institutional capacities.

As the wise woman once said, we never stop learning and we can learn from everybody and everything.

Diversity is strength, right?

Below the title page and synopsis you will find the introduction to “my” chapter and here you’ll find the original page for the publication: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd4711en

---

Chapter 5 – The state of human and institutional capacities, by Nina Isabella Moeller

5.1 Introduction

The conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA entail more than the immediate management of germplasm. They depend on a range of fields of activity, including policy, legislation, infrastructure, education and networking. Capacities in these fields constitute the subject matter of this chapter.

Since the publication of SoW2, a number of global changes have significantly shaped the context for the management of PGRFA. Chief among these is the increase in frequency of disruptive and catastrophic weather events, an indication of the palpable impact that climate change is having. Addressing climate change has moved to the forefront of the international agenda, which since 2015 has been framed by the SDGs. Similarly, the period since the publication of the SoW2 has also been characterized by concerns about the loss of biodiversity and declines in soil health, and greater recognition of the need for agroecological transformation of food and farming systems. Against this background, awareness of the importance of PGRFA has grown, especially in terms of their crucial role in food security and nutrition, the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, and the sustainability of agriculture in the face of climatic uncertainty and biodiversity loss. This awareness has encouraged greater attention to, and investments in, the conservation of these resources.

The international governance framework for genetic resources has also seen noteworthy development, specifically with the entry into force in 2014 of the Nagoya Protocol, the adoption in 2021 by FAO of the Framework for Action on Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, and the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Development of Aquatic Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December 2022. These international agreements are intended to be implemented in a mutually supportive manner and will support the implementation of the GPA2 and the International Treaty. However, implementing them in a harmonious way also places greater demands on human and institutional capacities.

The developing governance framework for PGRFA has increasingly emphasized the rights of smallholder and peasant farmers, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as applicable, and specifically women and youth, and their participation in decision-making. While this has been a focus since before adoption of the first GPA, it has acquired renewed emphasis over the last decade, as farmers, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, have gradually been better integrated into international negotiations. Examples include such mechanisms as the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues under the UN’s Economic and Social Council, established in 2000,1 the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism for relations with the UN Committee on World Food Security, established in 20102, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UN General Assembly, 2018).

Crucially, digital technologies and biotechnologies have seen remarkable new developments. New molecular techniques have led to a drastic reduction in the costs and time involved in generating DNA and RNA sequence data. These developments are increasing the efficiency of the characterization of PGRFA and speeding up the development of new crop varieties through such techniques as marker-assisted selection, genomics-assisted breeding and gene editing. However, the technical capacity to generate and manage this information and utilize these technologies is unevenly distributed across regions and institutions, mirroring wider economic and geopolitical asymmetries, and this uneven distribution of capacity constrains equitable access to the benefits arising from PGRFA use. Advances in these fields have also led to discussions and, recently, a decision at the international level with regard to the distribution of benefits arising from the use of DSI. The decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2024 (CBD, 2024) operationalizes a multilateral mechanism for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of DSI on genetic resources.

Social media and other online communication tools have greatly transformed the ways in which the wider public, as well as professional communities, share information. This has also had an impact on the delivery of education, including in the context of PGRFA, often facilitating participation and increasing training opportunities. However, the amount of information available online today can be overwhelming and requires improved skills to assess and evaluate its credibility and reliability. Likewise, continuous capacity building to keep pace with technological and informational developments is needed.

This chapter is based on a literature review and an analysis of country reports submitted in the context of reporting requirements for monitoring the implementation of the GPA2. Country reports were mined for key information pertaining to Priority Activities 13 to 18 of the GPA2.3 Sections 5.2 to 5.6 document achievements and remaining gaps and needs in these priority areas. The country reports were also used to analyse differences among regions for each priority activity.

The analysis is based on countries’ own assessments. Moreover, each component of the analysis only covers the countries that reported on their actions and needs in the respective priority area. As not all countries responded to all questions, the total numbers of respondents vary, and this hinders precise comparisons. The chapter also draws on information available from the International Treaty on ongoing work under its ambit. Given that approximately two decades have passed since the International Treaty came into force in 2004, the chapter highlights the critical role that this instrument has played to date, outlining some key developments and reviewing some of the major achievements and lacunae in its implementation.