58 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM from the historical development of the concept, which the author understands as meaning that farmers’ rights is a tool to enable farmers to continue their important contribution to conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. As such, even though it does not provide for any right, this paragraph is key in understanding the meaning of the other provisions of Article 9. Article 9(2)1 provides that Contracting Parties should take measures to promote and protect farmers’ rights and lists the following as being part of the concept of farmers’ rights: (a) protection of traditional knowledge relevant to PGRFA; (b) the right to equally participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of PGRFA; (c) the right to participate in making deci- sions, at the national level, on matters related to the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. From this text it appears that measures to implement these elements of farmers’ rights were seen by the Contracting Parties as most important in achiev- ing an effective realization of such rights. The list however is not exhaustive,1 as measures in other areas that may relate to farmers’ rights may also be relevant in implmenting this concept. This is important to bear in mind when analysing the effective- ness of implementation in the different countries and when look- ing at the interrelations with breeders’ rights. Regarding Article 9(2) it also has to be underlined that the introductory text of the paragraph clearly sets the scene, which is that implement- ing farmers’ rights is a responsibility for national governments and thus, must be adapted to the national needs, priorities and realities. Again, ignoring this context may easily lead to a false analysis of the concept of farmers’ rights and its interrelations with breeders’ rights. Finally, there is also Article 9(3) which states that “[N] othing in this Article shall be interpreted to limit any rights that farmers have to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagating material, subject to national law and as appropriate.” When looking at Article 9, it cannot be ignored that Article 9(3) appears in a negative formulation as opposed to the positive and enabling formulation of Article 9(2). It is the understanding of the author that placing the element of the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved-seed in a paragraph separate from paragraph 2 does not mean that this element is not part of the rights that national governments should con- sider when realizing farmers’ rights. However, it is clear that it is not listed among the elements in respect of which Contracting Parties should take measures to promote and protect. On the contrary, from the text of Article 9(3) it appears that this right is considered to exist and to be implemented in national laws, as appropriate. The level of action required from Contracting Parties to implement the different elements of farmers’ rights is not the same in Article 9(2) and Article 9(3) since the latter does not require Contracting Parties to proactively take measures. INTERRELATIONS So plant breeders are faced with two conventions with two dif- ferent sets of objectives. On the one hand there is UPOV, which seeks to encourage the development of new plant varieties for the benefit of society. On the other hand there is the ITPGRFA, which is aiming for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA and access and benefit sharing. When looking at the impact of UPOV, it is clear that a system as created by UPOV underpins the goals of the Treaty by stim- ulating plant breeding, leading to conservation and sustainable use. It also brings considerable benefits to farmers and growers via the breeders’ exemption, and it boosts availability of modern varieties to the farmer. If we then explore the areas of interrelation between Farmers’ Rights as provided for in Article 9 of the Treaty and breeders’ rights, we have to look at the different elements of Farmers’ Rights one by one. The first one to look at is the pro- tection of traditional knowledge, which is an area where UPOV has no relevance. The second element is the right to participate in benefits sharing and this is where the breeders’ exemption has a clear relevance. The breeders’ exemption, through all the features as described above, provides important benefit sharing in itself. Regarding the participation element, we notice that the Treaty context is very precise and refers to national level, where UPOV has no direct influence. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that participation of farmers in decision-making at the UPOV level is ensured. This right, by the way, is very central and important for the realization of Farmers’ Rights since it is a key element also to achieve the other elements of Article 9. Last, the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved- seeds. This is perhaps the most criticized element where alleged conflicts between farmers’ rights and breeders’ rights are quickly Teff grain in Ethiopia.