Hi, hope this link useful for you

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/015/aj631e.pdf

Dear Salwan,

Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, it does not work (on my computer). Could you send me a copy of the PDF? Thanks and regards, Jan

Dear Johannes,

I believe that you had partly answered the question in your explanatory session. In addition, the aspect of "access and benefit sharing" needs to be further strengthened especially in the developing countries. All the stakeholder especially the local custodians of plant genetic resources need to further informed in this aspect. Once access to and benefit from using those genetic resources are clear and specific, sustainability of conservation network can become easier.

More information here: https://www.cbd.int/abs/infokit/revised/web/all-files-en.pdf

Dear Olawale,

Thank you for adding this 'political' dimension on networking. I agree that issues such as access and benefit-sharing are important and that we need to create the necessary awareness and build capacity among the various stakeholders, in particular at the community level. I think there is also an ethical dimension that needs to be added, especially when the networking includes farmers and local/traditional community members.

Thanks for this stimulating question, Jan.

A major rethink is needed and different kinds of networks than those that we had a decade ago. Some thoughts.

Personally, I don´t think that a global funds coming from access and benefit sharing or profits arising from PGRFA could finance conservation to a sufficient level, even if the Treaty is reformed in the next years or companies step up to provide more funds, etc. International funds will be relatively small compared to the needs. These funds can perhaps "prime" certain pumps, but should not be expected to continuously finance initiatives at all levels. Perhaps strategic investments should rather be directed to global public goods that support action that is above all local.

Cities are leading climate action initiatives, more than national governments perhaps. Similarly, for PGRFA integration in territorial governance structures, such as local governments, regional governments, civil society organizations, can potentially provide financial sustainability and continuity. Linking conservation with local identity, ownership and economic opportunities would create a stronger political platform. Shortening the chain between conservation and use would help, especially when/where large national programmes are difficult to finance in the long term. Many of these types of initiatives already exist, but could be strengthened by intensifying linkages with other initiatives.

A strategic investment in digital communication and information tools can reduce costs of connecting these local initiatives with each other, creating networks that are less costly to maintain. PGRFA is 90% about information, 10% about planting materials. Digital media and design should be employed strategically to stimulate and support conservation efforts. For example, providing easy-to-use, high-quality digital tools to keep inventories of local collections will also make it easier to share this information with others. There are not many high-quality digital tools for local use.

A strategic investment in citizen science can help to integrate conservation and make conservation monitoring more comparable. It could be done through rural agricultural schools and universities as part of the network. I think there is potentially a lot of interest, but a specific investment needs to be made to create curricula, materials and generate capacity.

A principle of "subsidiarity" is crucial, I think. Overall, the new networks may need to be more frugal, but could be much more balanced in terms of reciprocity and healthier in terms of local and national ownership.

Thank you Jacob, very good comments and additions indeed! Herewith a few reflections on your points.

I certainly would agree that a global fund, through whatever sources filled, would be sufficient to ensure adequate conservation and presence of sufficient genetic diversity in the production systems. We will need other approaches such as the ones you suggested, but possibly also political frameworks that allow that to happen! And indeed, global public goods are different from local resources, in many respects (other than the biological dimension). Both will require proper support and stimuli.

Your point about 'linking conservation with local identity, ownership and economic opportunities' is indeed a critical one and is of crucial importance to ensure sustainable conservation approaches and to ensure the required links between 'development' and genetic resources. Consequently, proper representation of the community and consumer level stakeholder groups in any national/governmental conservation efforts and in national, regional or global conservation and use networks seems to be indispensable. Conserving genetic diversity is also conserving and respecting cultural diversity, stakeholders' identity and accepting their traditions and certainly their interests.

Your point on the importance of information and communication is indeed a key aspect to allow and facilitate efficient conservation and use, in particular through the sharing of experiences, knowledge and linking initiatives and players as well as to allow proper linking of the resources with its users. The provision of adequate tools and means to the communities, rural and urban, would allow these opportunities to be used, including to facilitate the needed exchange of knowledge and experiences gained through 'citizen science'.

Yes, we need more possibly a rethink too on how to create more flexible and certainly more dynamic formal and informal networks. Too heavy handed and top-down functioning networks are not the solution and are also not sustainable. Allowing indeed the 'power' over planning and decision-making to the lowest possible level in the society is a key prerequisite. Facilitating rather than dominating is another aspect that is crucial to allow the creation of dynamic, inclusive and open PGRFA (and other) networks!

Now with CBD recommendations all national governments enacted biodiversity laws and authorities to check the bio resources available in their territory . This further percolated to local level eg. village which suppose to record the all bio-resources for further benefit share mechanism and claim clearances in biodiversity act. Under such scenario regional networking can done with territorial governments in bilateral or multilateral groups. There are many overlapping gene pool at regional level as its beyond human territorial control so in such cases all have decide jointly for conservation and utilization of genetic resources. In India like Biodiversity act, 202 regulates all such cases through National Biodiversity authority.

Conceerning this discussion, I found the following article relevant "

Access without benefit-sharing: Design, effectiveness and reform of the FAO Seed Treaty"

Article Access without benefit-sharing: Design, effectiveness and re...

Thank you Olawale, I have added this interesting paper to the list of references! Please feel free to add others that you find relevant! Best regards, Jan

Dear Mihaela,

Thank you very much for your reaction and suggestions. Yes, legal obligations, conditions and opportunities with respect to genetic resources can be an opportunity to help in conserving genetic resources across borders. Unfortunately, as quite common, they can also be a obstacle to achieve the necessary collaboration among people/institutions in a country and, even more so, across borders with neighboring countries. The suggestion you made on 'The European Region of Gastronomy Platform and Award' is indeed interesting and could contribute to overcome and/or facilitate inter-regional collaboration!

Thanks and kind regards,

Jan