Category: Funding

CGN is considering the introduction of handling fees for the samples it distributes to its users. To explore the pro’s and con’s of this option, it started a discussion in the international genebank community by (1) posting a message on this weblog, (2) correspondence with the ECPGR Steering Committee via its mailing list, and (3) bilateral correspondence with some relevant actors. This request for feedback resulted in numerous valuable responses. Below we briefly highlight major outcomes of the discussion and their implications for the next steps that CGN will consider to take.

Budget shortages and handling fees a common theme

As a first outcome, it became apparent that the issue of requesting handling fees for genebank samples has been recently discussed in several genebanks. However, so far only very few (e.g. AVRDC, Taiwan and NIAS, Japan) have actually introduced handling fees. Regardless the outcome of the discussion, we feel that the discussion has a value in its own right, since it triggers attention for the difficult funding position of a number of genebanks. Whether genebanks can cope with deficiencies in their funding is of course highly relevant, given the crucial role that genebanks play in plant breeding and crop research, especially in the context of longer term world food security under climate change.

The nature of a handling fee

Generating regular income from the distribution of germplasm is clearly not CGNs intention; this would not be compatible with the conditions of the ITPGRFA, nor with AEGIS. Handling fees refer to relatively small contributions to cover the costs of handling the request, including the associated labour, material and postage costs, plus the transaction costs of the payment. To our understanding the ‘value’ of the accessions is thus irrelevant to answer the question of introducing handling fees or not by CGN or any other genebank, assuming this value exceeds the handling costs in the first place.

The fee level

A handling fee of €50 per accession that CGN initially proposed, was generally considered far too high for various reasons. Indeed, it might be more appropriate to calculate the true distribution costs and recalculate the resulting fees, that might possibly consist of a charge per transaction and a charge per accession. However, for some specific categories of material, that fall outside the definition of PGR in the narrow sense (mapping populations, allele collections, etc.) and that have not been included in the MLS, different charges might be applied not only covering the handling fees.

Transaction costs

It is expected that the costs of financial transactions can be kept low at both ends (provider and recipient) by using ICT solutions that are currently available.

Exemptions

Some groups of users will be exempted from the handling fees. Groups that are currently considered for exemption include users in least developed countries (according to the United Nations category), and partners of CGN that support CGN by regenerating and/or evaluating material as an in-kind contribution. Requests that can be considered repatriation will also be exempted. It seems fair if the distribution costs made for the exempted requests will be carried by CGN, and will not be compensated by increasing the fees of the other requests.

Possible effects of handling fee introduction

Handling fees will not only compensate distribution costs, they are also expected to considerably reduce the number of distributed samples, and thus in the longer term regeneration costs. Users may become more critical regarding the number of samples they request if there is a price tag connected to the individual accession, and some users might decide not to request material at all or try to get the material from other genebanks. This expected reduction in the number of requested samples can be both positive and negative, since it may avoid less well considered requests for material, but it may also deter serious users. The latter will in general be undesirable as genebanks have been mandated to promote the use of their materials. Also, the willingness of users to collaborate with the providing genebank, to give feedback and send evaluation data back to the genebank may be negatively impacted.

Handling fees and liability

The service that a genebank provides should be of appropriate quality, irrespective of whether handling fees are charged or not. Introduction of handling fees should not affect liability issues: a genebank provides the material as good as it can, and cannot be held liable for any damages due to the lack of quality of the seed material or the associated information. However, this issue should be investigated more in depth before the introduction of handling fees.

Related issues

In the discussion a few interesting issues arose that may justify a separate study or discussion. For example, it appeared that some of the major genebanks are confronted with a steep increase in the number of distributed samples over the last few years. What has caused this increase? To which extent might the following factors have contributed: (1) are breeding companies building up their own PGR collections since they fear these resources may get less accessible over time, (2) do new marker assisted breeding methods allow for more efficient use of exotic material, (3) or do websites and better use of other means of communication render the use of PGR much more attractive and easy. Related to this question is another lack of insight: what do we know about the distribution of genebank material to users by individual genebanks, how do different user groups compare, and what use conditions do apply on the distributed germplasm? The answers to those questions would also facilitate further deliberations on handling fees, but answers may not be feasible in the short term.

CGN’s decision-making process

In the coming months, CGN will continue its consultations with stakeholders, including its users and its main funding agency, the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. A decision regarding the introduction of handling fees is expected to be made in the last quarter of this year at the earliest. In the meanwhile, we invite all our colleagues and stakehlders to further contribute to the discusions on the introduction of a handling fee for genebank accessions. In turn, we shall update you regularly ablout any new insights or developments.

Bert Visser & Theo van Hintum (CGN)

Attentive readers may remember a post several months back announcing a project that is attempting the unenviable task of assigning a dollar (or euro, or maybe even drachma) value to the Greek national genebank, and presumably making some recommendations for funding. Well, the project is off and running and now has a website. One for the feed reader.

LATER: Of course, to get at that valuation, it will be necessary to figure out how much of the material in the Greek genebank is unique. Well, Aegis now has an app for that!

Bert Visser, director of the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) has just sent the message below to colleagues in the European crop genebank network, and suggested that readers of this blog might also have an opinion. If you have, do leave it here as a comment.

Like so many genebanks, since a number of years CGN has been confronted with increasing costs and diminishing budgets for its core genebank tasks (collecting, regeneration, storage, evaluation, documentation, distribution). Moreover, CGN has observed a considerable increase in the number of distributed samples resulting in increased handling costs and accelerated exhaustion of our stocks with consequently higher yearly regeneration costs.

In order to manage a widening financial gap, in consultation with the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, CGN is considering a number of measures including a revision of seed viability testing protocols (based on recent findings regarding the storability of seeds under genebank conditions) and a much tighter planning of regeneration and acquisition activities. Furthermore, the private sector will be approached to discuss options for the sector’s continued involvement in regeneration of CGN germplasm.

In addition, we are considering a measure for which we seek your comments and advice. This measure regards the introduction of a handling fee for the distribution of CGN germplasm. The Treaty, in its Article 12, allows for a handling fee, whereas the distribution conditions under AEGIS do not exclude the possibility of such a fee. Globally, only few genebanks have introduced handling fees, notably NIAS (Japan) and AVRDC (global; vegetables). CGN handling fees would not apply to partners that carry out regeneration tasks for CGN, neither to NGOs.

CGN is considering handling fees that could amount up to € 50 per accession. Whereas we consider this a modest amount per accession, the request for large numbers of samples may be strongly discouraged. Therefore, discount fees for larger numbers of requested samples, or for pre-packed sets (core or elite collections) will be considered. In any case, a handling fee might encourage potential users to consider in more detail which accessions are really needed in planned research or breeding programmes, and may prevent poorly motivated requests or intended duplications of CGN germplasm in other collections.

We realise that any unilateral action of CGN may have an impact on you: users may shift from CGN to you assuming your distribution is still free, and you might be asked by your own government to introduce fees as well. There may be other consequences that we have not taken into account yet.

In any case, we do not wish to introduce a unilateral handling fee overnight and have not yet taken any definite decision, and this is why we are consulting you as our European colleagues to have your opinions and feed-back. In particular, we would be interested to hear of any other discussions on the introduction of a handling fee.