40 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM TVH/MB: Getting access to new PGR and organising collection trips. Another important difficulty is that the procedures and responsibilities within provider countries are often unclear, and that efforts to get more clarity are often unsuccessful, because people do not respond or do not dare to make decisions. The regulations should become much simpler: all PGR(FA) in one regulation, no documentation per transaction but BS based on levies or tax. Within the framework of the ITPGRFA, steps into this direction are being discussed, but so far, agreement has not been reached. ES: WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE YOURS IN DEALING WITH THE REGULATIONS? KVL: Pay attention to these regulations when developing varieties with a certain %parentage from genebank accessions that are under an MTA. SVB: Exchange information with others. We are all dealing with the same issues and can learn from each other. This is starting to happen in EARMA Ethics Group. TVH/MB: Follow the rules and be transparent. We also feel it the responsibility of the professionals dealing with PGR to give clear signals to policy makers that the current regulations are not doing their job, and that their effects are even contra-produc- tive. They are meant to promote benefit-sharing, but by limiting access, they are also limiting benefit-sharing. SC: Further invest in legal advice and communication. AR: Work on renewed research practices, organized around the partnership with a local researcher. ES: WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL VIEW OF THE DETRACTIONS AND BENEFITS OF THE NEW FRAMEWORK? KVL: It causes only additional administration and results in a reduced use of foreign PGR in developing new varieties. A much better alternative would be to unify the breeder’s exemption globally (no restrictions on the use of plant material in the development of new varieties). Of course, in situ and ex situ conservation of genetic resources should be further supported by governmental financial contribution. AFAB: It puts good questions on the table about fair exchanges and has pushed everyone towards better documentation and overall management practices. Globally it was one of the trig- gers (research in itself was a stronger one) for improving overall management practices. It has also pushed us to gather all our different research domains networks involved in the conservation of genetic resources into a single infrastructure; we realized we could really help each other. However, it is still an unstable and difficult in practice system, which should be simplified. TVH/MB: Getting access to new PGR and organising collection trips is now more difficult. The procedures and responsibili- ties within provider countries are often unclear and efforts to get more clarity are often unsuccessful because people do not respond or do not dare to make decisions. The regulations should become much simpler. SC: It’s fair that benefits are shared and that this is legally con- tracted. SVB: Improving biodiversity is important and researchers should ensure their work benefits stakeholders, but highly-invasive regu- lation is not the best way to do this. There should be a pragmatic balance to make sure people don’t spend unnecessary time doing administration. AR: These regulations have the advantage of proposing a fair redistribution of the products of research and an encouragement to the conservation of biodiversity insofar as this is considered as an exchange value. This allows us to reconsider the process of value creation and to spread the idea that the value is not only embodied by scientific knowledge but also by a raw genetic resource, fruit of a territory and conserved since millennia, or traditional knowledge. HOW DO YOU SEE THE FUTURE, LET’S SAY IN 20 YEARS FROM NOW, IN TERMS OF WHAT WILL HAVE CHANGED BECAUSE OF THESE REGULATIONS? KVL: Awareness of the value of PGR will have increased. As the benefits return to society, benefit sharing will have to be organ- ized by public taxes, ensuring free use and conservation of PGR. SVB: ABS will be a common part of doing research. It will be easier as infrastructure will be operating efficiently. Hopefully the regulations aren’t changed frequently. AFAB: The worldwide documentation on accessions will be greatly improved. There will be a more realistic view on the costs of PGR maintenance and how to fund it; the importance of non-monetary advantages will have been understood and this will help simplifying the system. More species will have been added to the treaty. A reasonable agreement will have been cre- ated concerning associated digital data. TVH/MB: Hopefully regulations will not obstruct collection of PGR, preventing genetic erosion due to the changing climate etc. A simpler ABS system may exist. SC: More benefits need to flow back to the country of origin if the system is going to continue. AR: In the coming years, the mechanism proposed by the ITPGRFA should extend beyond Annex 1 because it simplifies the issue of benefit sharing in the field of plant breeding, and pools the benefits, so that they are used in a concerted manner between all the supplying countries. Moreover, the logic of the ITPGRFA seems to support the dynamics of the commons, par- ticularly legitimate in the field of food and agriculture, pro- vided that the supplier countries are really involved in their management.