GRPI scours the globe for fresh thought on genetic policy
Seven years ago the Genetic Resources Policy Initiative set out to break the policy-making log-jam blocking progress in the management of plant genetic resources, moving down from high-level debate to the grass roots. Did it succeed?
- Peter Deupmann (in the white shirt), a GRPI consultant, listens to farmers in Nepal as they discuss genetic resources policy.
Genetic resources policy-making at the international level was going in circles at the time," recalled project leader Michael Halewood. "We wanted to break away from that and directly involve field stakeholders—farmer groups, unions, junior officials and the like—to see if we could get away from the staleness of discussions at the international level."
In 2002, with the backing of the Netherlands and Canada, a raft of colleagues across the world embarked on what became known as the Genetic Resources Policy Initiative (GRPI). Now, after nearly seven years of studies and deliberation, the GRPI project has come to a close. Not surprisingly, Halewood reports mixed success with, for example, really fresh thinking on the need for impacts on genetic diversity to be considered alongside assessment of environmental impact when planning large-scale developments or policy changes.
The highlights, however, are tempered by low points, such as the realization that there is no naïve 'state of nature' in the minds of lower-level officials, farmers, traders and advisors when it comes to the subject of genetic regulation. "We were a little surprised how frequently we heard back the same words and ways of describing problems from folks working in communities and national programmes. Clearly, the international discourse—once polarized—permeates to all levels," Halewood noted ruefully.
The project owes its origins to discussions in the 1990s within the so-called Crucible Group on how policies affected the stewardship, control and use of genetic resources. Analyses that followed, by both Bioversity and the International Development Research Centre of Canada (which funded the Crucible Group and then GRPI), highlighted disturbing trends in areas such as increasing controversy over competing claims for control of genetic resources; tensions among stakeholders that threatened future conservation; and the growing risks of over-hasty decision-making under pressure from obligations to implement international agreements.
On top of that list of issues, there was seen to be a need to define and advance specific national priorities within the context of international agreements and discussion. As a result, GRPI was developed to strengthen policy research and formulation capacities in the field of genetic resources at national and subregional levels. The 'big idea' was that an inclusive approach was likely to produce more robust, effective and legitimate policies.
To ensure delivery against these aims, GRPI was carefully designed to provide resources, time, technical support and, above all, a context for focused genetic resources policy activities involving teams of stakeholders.
The project operated initially in six countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Nepal, Peru, Vietnam and Zambia), with one more—Uganda—added at a later stage, and also in two regions—West-Central Africa and East Africa. The selection of countries and regions involved an extensive consultation process which was then followed by the identification of national and regional institutional hosts and governance units: Task Forces. It was the Task Forces that then became the central mechanism for ensuring widespread participation and inclusiveness in project governance and activities (see 'Genetic Resources Policy Initiative,' IPGRI Annual Report 2002, p. 6).
At the heart of the GRPI approach has been the '3M modus operandi': multistakeholder involvement, multidisciplinary coverage and multisectoral participation. First, the 3M teams conducted national surveys to identify opportunities for policy development. Then they agreed upon the kinds of research and capacity building that would be necessary in support of those policy developments. The 3M teams then guided, and sometimes participated in, those research and capacity-building activities. Throughout the process, the 3M teams reached out to involve policy-makers in order to ensure the uptake and use of their targeted products.
The 3M modus operandi is unrivalled in achieving inclusiveness, but the investment of time and resources required is substantial. Hard, proactive work is needed to ensure the inclusion and continued participation of groups as diverse as farmers and the private sector. This is an essential dimension, and yet it proved to be one of the most challenging.
Halewood is convinced that GRPI owes much of its success to the fact that its inclusiveness raised the profile of the project in participating countries, created respect and legitimacy with authorities, and provided a welcome model for individual governments to take forward a more consultative, inclusive approach to genetic resource policy-making.
"There were definite surprises," Halewood recalled. Work in Egypt uncovered novel thinking on the need for genetic resources impact assessments in development planning, in the same mould as the very much more common environmental impact assessments. "This is a shift in policy ideas that is likely to have substantial and beneficial international impacts. It will take a while, but if we are able to build on this example, 5 to 10 years from now, impact assessments of genetic resources for food and agriculture may be pretty wide-spread," he concluded.
Elsewhere, as a result of GRPI's activities, laws were drafted and even approved and papers were published analyzing policy options and summarizing data to inform policy development. The project also published several reports on issues such as farmers' rights, seed systems, the economics of on-farm conservation and participatory processes. Two multi-authored books that will bring many of these threads together are in the final stages of production.
Yet, from the outset, GRPI also sought to bring about change as much as to deliver tangible products. A measure of success here is the much improved culture for genetic resources policy-making in the participating countries and strengthened national abilities to engage in 3M analysis. Equally significant has been the learning that has gone on in parallel with these developments. The GRPI process has served as an experiment in participatory policy research that really can inform future work. It also demonstrated, once again, the need for projects to build in protracted, in-depth relationships with national partners, both for the development of relevant products and to ensure that those products get picked up and used by the people who need them most.
Halewood expresses his genuine satisfaction that the GRPI methods—though slow—do work and do deliver. He hopes one outcome of GRPI will be a positive impact on the effective implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and on the development of a more thriving interface between formal and informal seed systems.
"When we started the project, the Treaty still wasn't in force. GRPI matured along with the Treaty, and has already given rise to some spin-off contributions of significance to the Treaty's Governing Body," Halewood said. "Some additional GRPI outputs will be contributed to the Governing Body and can also help to inform the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture's discussions on access and benefit-sharing as it affects agricultural genetic resources."
Further information
