In Nigeria, I am not exactly sure of the status of things regarding implementation of ABS policies, but my inquiries indicate the awareness on these issues is on the increase. However, it is yet to be seen if all aspects of the policies can be effectively implemented or enforced. At the country level, benefits and access to plant genetic resources in Nigeria are largely unrestricted. In this case the rights of farmers and communities are largely granted. Research institutions in Nigeria are publicly funded and are generally inclined to provide farmers, public and private sectors access to plant genetic resources in the country. Farmers rights are highly protected, but not of the plant breeder who services are paid for by the government in research institutions. Plant varieties developed are therefore not patented for now and as such does not have any monetary payments that is mandatory in nature even if they have great value for industrial purposes.

Monetary benefits from ABS will be more apt in advanced countries than in the developing countries. The developed countries have the technology and big economy to support ABS policies and are therefore much likely to make the best (monetary) benefits from it. On the contrary, the scenario in most developing countries does not provide sufficient inducement. Monetary benefits from ABS policies would be most advantageous for developing countries where plant genetic resources from those countries are used in the developed world; otherwise such benefits cannot be substantial. Basically in most developing countries, agriculture is still mainly in the hands of peasant farmers where commercial farming is still evolving, and as such, the utilization of patented plant genetic resources in the developing world, where they exist, cannot be expected to result in considerable monetary benefits there. The right environment has to be created where the economy and technological advancement can support such policies (benefits).

Emmanuel

1. In Cote d'Ivoire, the national agricultural research service CNRA is playing a leading role in PGRFA policy issues. In 2006, a global strategy has been established and an implementation project has been submitted to the FAO. CNRA was granted recently by the FAO. But a common statement involving all stakeholders at national level has not been signed yet.
2. Concerning monetary benefits sharing, I agree with some of the argument listed (under assignment). I think that Developing countries should not expect funds from ABS policies for their global development needs.

In the Netherlands, ABS policies are fairly well implemented. There is an ABS focal person, and the legal components seem under control. The national Centre for Genetic Resources has implemented the SMTA and has formulated policy regarding the non Annex 1 material and material not for food and agriculture.

Regarding the monetary benefits I am very sceptical, I have strong doubts if anyone will banefit given the legal and administrative burden it puts on exchange of PGR - only lawyers will benifit. But time will tell, we can only hope that the access part will allow a more efficient exchange of PGR that in the long run will benefit all.

1. Since 2001 the access to the Brazilian genetic heritage is regulated by the Genetic Heritage Management Council (CGEN). All request involving activities that aim to access the Brazilian genetic heritage must be submitted to this council, which is compound by persons that represent several National institutions and ministries (scientific and technological development; agriculture; environment…). The principles of CGEN are in agreement with the CBD. All germplasm flow has been doing through a MTA. However, the legislation to a equitable sharing of the benefits arising out the utilization of the traditional knowledge associated to genetic resources with economical potential are under construction. Until August it is open a public consultation, by CGEN, to people show their opinion about this legislation. A questionnaire is available in the internet asking for critics and suggestions aiming to elaborate a fair sharing of the benefits.
2. I really don’t think that a legislation involving monetary benefits could be implemented in a fair way, without damage of somebody (local community; farmers…). What I mean is what is asked by CGEN in the public consultation. If a local community has a knowledge of some genetic resource and this community sign some agreement with some Institution, and, in this agreement, this community will receive some monetary benefit due to the information about the knowledge associated to this genetic resource, another community, that has the same knowledge associated to the same genetic resource, and, by some reason, the institution that is interested in this genetic resource does not know that others communities share the same knowledge, these communities will be very prejudiced. How could we do this kind of agreement in a fair way?

In Nepal, the ABS policiy is just getting inception. Some NGOs and INGOs are now taking initiateive just to create awarness about the issues of ABS. They are trying to adopt participatory approach to build the effective policy including farmers community representative, extension workers, government officers from different ministry such as agriculture, forestry and science and environment and subject matter specialist. Up to now, very few part of the biodiversity; particularly agro-biodiversity, is documented in the name of community biodiversity register. Which also adresses TK. I think this approach is right approach to share ABS within country level.Its beauty aspect is service to respective community rather than individual benefit. However, still we have no strigent policies regardomg breeders and farmers right at the government level.

Im my opinion, monetary benefit sharing is not a judicial basis as it does not address sustainable use and conservation of PGR. I agree from mentioned points in the assignment and just want to say, benefit sharing should be only service oriented so that every one from every part of the world can be benefitted rationally. Benifit sharing through effective service is sustainable methods over monetary one.

In Nepal, the ABS policiy is just getting inception. Some NGOs and INGOs are now taking initiateive just to create awarness about the issues of ABS. They are trying to adopt participatory approach to build the effective policy including farmers community representative, extension workers, government officers from different ministry such as agriculture, forestry and science and environment and subject matter specialist. Up to now, very few part of the biodiversity; particularly agro-biodiversity, is documented in the name of community biodiversity register. Which also adresses TK. I think this approach is right approach to share ABS within country level.Its beauty aspect is service to respective community rather than individual benefit. However, still we have no strigent policies regardomg breeders and farmers right at the government level.

Im my opinion, monetary benefit sharing is not a judicial basis as it does not address sustainable use and conservation of PGR. I agree from mentioned points in the assignment and just want to say, benefit sharing should be only service oriented so that every one from every part of the world can be benefitted rationally. Benifit sharing through effective service is sustainable methods over monetary one.

In Nepal, the ABS policiy is just getting inception. Some NGOs and INGOs are now taking initiateive just to create awarness about the issues of ABS. They are trying to adopt participatory approach to build the effective policy including farmers community representative, extension workers, government officers from different ministry such as agriculture, forestry and science and environment and subject matter specialist. Up to now, very few part of the biodiversity; particularly agro-biodiversity, is documented in the name of community biodiversity register. Which also adresses TK. I think this approach is right approach to share ABS within country level.Its beauty aspect is service to respective community rather than individual benefit. However, still we have no strigent policies regardomg breeders and farmers right at the government level.

Im my opinion, monetary benefit sharing is not a judicial basis as it does not address sustainable use and conservation of PGR. I agree from mentioned points in the assignment and just want to say, benefit sharing should be only service oriented so that every one from every part of the world can be benefitted rationally. Benifit sharing through effective service is sustainable methods over monetary one.

In china, the regulation of ABS of FAO and SMTA are rarely mentioned. but china has take part in the CBD, some laws or regulations about plant genetic resource consistent with the FAO ABS policies and CBD agreements. including the laws of seed law, circumstance conservation treatys,etc. some policies be implemented well, but some not good, for example, the farmer's rights, in my knowledge, the entry of farmer's benefit to genetic plants could not be concerned.
I think the application of ABS policies relevant with the monetary benefit could be accepted, and these treaty take care all parties' benefits, although concern this term, the procedure of MT will be more complexed and unefficient, the usage of the genetic materials follow the rules of fair and equitable sharing of benefits.