EUROPEAN-SEED.COM I EUROPEAN SEED I 39 improving the documentation of our collection under the MCPD standard, defining with our partners the subset of our collections that can be exchanged under the Treaty, and having our researchers consult with genebank managers before any exchange. We are also participating in working groups set up by the Ministries of Agriculture or projects funded by the consortium of national research institute in biology to develop operational tools for genebank managers. WHAT IS MOST DIFFICULT? KVL: Achieving clarity and uniformity on a global scale, with clear translation to each group of users (breeders, research workers). AFAB: There are uncertainties on the precise rules to be fol- lowed, which is totally dependent on each accession, its history, its usage and the projects in which it is used. The use of large diversity panels, necessary to do statistically-sound association genetics studies, is becoming a nightmare under the NP but could be simplified under the treaty. Now this uncertainty is being spread on digital knowledge, which is not very good news for Open Science goals if the solutions proposed to address bene- fit sharing on data are as difficult to implement as for the biolog- ical materials. Personally, I have pushed very hard towards the generalization of the treaty. However, it seems still impossible to use it for all crops and I understand that its funding mechanism is still under threat. I think it is a pity because this is the right direction: uniform rules, pre-negotiated by all parties under the auspices of the FAO. We are trying also to have an approach where we try to balance the legal risks with the administrative burden, which is quite challenging within networks where the risks are not the same between the partners. SEBASTIEN CARPENTIER (SC): Convincing governments that they need to invest in sharing. There is indeed still confusion. This can be solved be legal advice. AR: First of all, we are often faced with the difficulty of explain- ing to partners/focal points and researchers that sharing in terms of fees is often inappropriate and irrelevant. The objective is rather to allow the strengthening of local research capacities. However, it may be difficult to imagine benefit sharing of this type since the appropriate infrastructures are lacking in the countries providing genetic resources. We are therefore very attentive to the ongoing discussions at the international level on the treatment of digitized genetic information. In the same vein, we try to reconcile the open data move- ment with the interest of genetic resource providers by propos- ing a dissemination of sequencing information under certain conditions and, in particular, the maintenance of the sovereignty of the country of origin, in order to avoid any misuse of the principles of the CBD. However, here we are confronted with editorial policies and research strategies that do not take into account these issues. To these new difficulties related to the evolution of activi- ties, there are recurrent difficulties of interpretation concerning the field of application in time and space of the various laws. Indeed, the use of the notion of utilization rather than access as a trigger for ABS does not clearly delineate the obligations of users. especially since this interpretation may vary from country to country, and access to the doctrine is often tricky. In this context, some issues are not solved. For example the question of when improved material will become independent of the supplier country(s) of origin. Moreover, where there are many crosses over a long period for plant breeding, this imposes that the bilateral negotiation required by the NP involves a mul- titude of suppliers, which can be very laborious. We believe it is important for the research community to mobilize in order to propose good practices validated by the European Commission which would provide essential details in order to enhance the legal security of users. SVB: There is still a lot of uncertainty on terminology in the reg- ulation (e.g. on derivatives, digital sequencing) and on national regulation and infrastructure. We need detailed guidance docu- ments that deal with specific topics and present a best practice approach from looking at specific exemplary cases. Better com- munication channels and training from EU to the universities and stakeholders is needed. It is very important to know whom to contact for information, approval and negotiation authority and this is not always the case.