WWF: Money woes threaten Romanian protected areas

Brasov, Romania: Dwindling resources and bureaucratic hurdles are threatening to destroy Romania’s protected area system – home to some of Europe’s largest remaining natural forests.

The protected area system, which on paper covers 20 percent of Romania, also houses more than half of Europe’s populations of bears, wolves, and other large carnivores.

Despite these natural riches, salaries of many park rangers and other staff have not been paid for months, and telephone and internet connections are being cut as operational funds disappear.

Although the Romanian Government has committed to ensuring the protection of these lands, both as a member of the European Union and through its signature on several international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, it has failed to stand by these pledges, citing fiscal difficulties.

“The Romanian government must take immediate action to address the crisis faced by the country’s protected areas and their tremendous natural wealth,” said Andreas Beckmann, Director of WWF’s Danube-Carpathian Programme. “Priorities should be setting up and properly financing a single national agency to oversee and manage the areas.”

Back to "paper parks"?

The protection afforded by the Romanian protected area network is impressive - at least on paper.

Significant support for protection activities has been financed through EU and various governmental and private funds, including the Dutch MATRA programme. An ongoing WWF programme supported by the MAVA Foundation has been providing significant training and support for protected area professionals in Romania and other parts of the Carpathian Mountains.

According to the Romanian legislation, Protected Area management can be subcontracted to institutions, companies or organizations that have the interest and resources to support active management and implementation of management plans.

Based on this legislation, in 2005 the Ministry of Environment subcontracted the National Forest Administration to manage most of the nation’s national and nature parks, including flagship areas such as Retezat, Rodna and Piatra Craiului National Parks, with no contribution to the management costs from the state budget.

The National Forest Administration provided funding to Protected Area administrations allowing for the management teams to function at a minimal capacity and carry out some management activities. Although the support provided was limited, it nevertheless was critically important for at least the basic functioning of the protected areas.

This system worked, even if not with maximum efficiency, until 2009 when the National Forest Administration began facing major financial difficulties.

As a result, many PA staff have not received salaries for months or are receiving salaries with very significant delays; office costs are not covered, leading to situations where PA staff have no access to telephone or internet service, and have major problems meeting basic costs.

Situation critical

The situation is now critical, WWF said.

Many of the PA staff are planning to leave or have left already, and there are no possibilities to hire new people. Work in previous years to build an effective protected area system in Romania is quickly unraveling.

The current state of Romania's protected area system is proving a liability not only for the future of the country's natural treasures but also for local development.

For example, many of the areas in Romania that have been designated as part of the EU's Natura 2000 network of specially protected sites often cover very large areas of 150,000-250,000 ha, including numerous communities and their administrative land. Approval of various local development projects is being held up by the lack of management plans and guidelines for the protected areas.

Although the Ministry of Environment has overall responsibility for protected areas, including Natura 2000 sites, there is very limited capacity within the Ministry to coordinate and support protected area management.

The previous government planned for and issued a governmental decision for the establishment of a National Agency for Protected Areas, with dedicated staff for PA related issues.

However, the present government has decided not to establish the agency, citing the financial crisis.

Unfortunately, even those funds that are available for nature protection are not being effectively used. More than €250 million in EU regional development funds have been allocated for Natura 2000 and Protected Areas.

But bureaucratic restrictions imposed largely by Romanian authorities have made it difficult if not impossible for institutions and organizations to access this support.

European and global treasures

Some 20 percent of Romanian territory is covered by one form of protected area or another, ranging from relatively strictly protected areas such as national parks to areas with fewer restrictions such as nature parks and biosphere reserves.

It also contains the globally important Carpathian Mountains and Danube Delta ecoregions.

This tremendous natural capital is of national and even European and global significance, and provides a host of ecosystem benefits, including food and fiber, growing opportunities for tourism and recreation as well as flood protection and carbon sequestration.

Romania's protected area system goes back to the early 20th century.

The first nature reserves were established in the 1920’s, followed by Retezat as the country's first national park in 1935. But few if any measures were taken for the management of protected areas in Romania until the mid 1990s, when the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the global financing instrument for the Convention on Biological Diversity among other conventions, supported the establishment of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration.

In 1999-2000, with GEF support, the first national and nature park administrations were established and management plans developed and partly implemented for Retezat National Park, Piatra Craiului National Park as well as Vanatori Neamt Nature Park. GEF support continued and some financial resources were allocated from the National Forest Administration and other institutions, permitting the establishment of management teams for most of the national and nature parks by 2006.

Eastern European allowances reveal weakness of the EU carbon market

Only in Poland and Estonia there will be extra 80 – 90 tons of CO2 emitted in the atmosphere in one year. The two countries won court challenges against the European Commission limits on carbon-dioxide emissions by energy and manufacturing companies.

This decision of the European Court of First Instance took the market by surprise, said Daniel Butler, carbon trader and Senior Consultant at the Czech based Wallich & Matthes. The market was down anyway and we expected a downward trend. However, this made the market to drop hard, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. If early September 2009 a carbon certificate revolved around EUR 15, now it might get to EUR 8, argues Butler.

The European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg ruled in its Judgment that the European Commission has a restricted authority to review national plans for allocating CO2 permits in the EU emissions trading system, ETS – European Trading Scheme, the biggest greenhouse-gas market in the world today. The Commission set tough CO2 limits on Eastern European Member States.

The European Commission, however, is contemplating an appeal to the European Court of Justice.

More similar cases are pending from Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania.

The rulings may undermine a push to curb the supply of CO2 allowances in the EU market as six other nations in Eastern Europe demand looser limits. With the United Nations negotiating an accord to fight climate change, the Commission aims to make fossil fuels more expensive and turn the European emissions trading system into the cornerstone of a global market.

The Copenhagen deal in December does not look good from this perspective, believes Butler. USA and China seem to want to go separately and not link to a global market. I would not say that this is the end of the carbon market but it sure induces a lot of pessimism. At the moment we talk (September 25, 2008 a certificate is worth EUR 12.5). And that is not all: many carbon funds will close down.

Probably the extra tons of carbon will not affect the atmosphere too much as the European production market is very weak. Steel mills work at a little capacity, industrial centers are slow, there is an obvious economic slow down and that means less carbon, explains Butler.

In October 2008, as the financial crisis started to bite, a ‘rebellious’ group of EU Member States pressed for a deferment of the date at which EU’s plans for emissions targets were supposed to be accepted as binding. A group of Eastern European nations and Italy were gathered into a protest against emissions reduction. The leaders of the ‘revolt’ were the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, and his Polish counterpart, Donald Tusk. Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia followed them.

Global Impacts of a Warming Arctic Surpass Predictions

Warming in the Arctic could lead to flooding affecting one quarter of the world’s population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from massive carbon pools, and extreme global weather changes, according to a new WWF report.

The Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications report, released today, outlines dire global consequences of a warming Arctic that are far worse than previous projections. The unprecedented peer-reviewed report brings together top climate scientists who have assessed the current science on arctic warming.

“What they found was a truly sobering picture,” said Dr. Martin Sommerkorn, senior climate change advisor for WWF’s Arctic programme. “What this report says is that a warming Arctic is much more than a local problem, it’s a global problem.”


“Simply put, if we do not keep the Arctic cold enough, people across the world will suffer the effects.”

The report shows that numerous Arctic climate feedbacks – negative effects prompted by the impacts of warming -- will make global climate change more severe than indicated by other recent projections, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 assessment.

The dramatic loss of sea ice resulting from the Arctic warming at about twice the rate of the rest of the world will influence atmospheric circulation and weather in the Arctic and beyond. This is projected to change temperature and precipitation patterns in Europe and North America, affecting agriculture, forestry and water supplies.

In addition, the Arctic’s frozen soils and wetlands store twice as much carbon as is held in the atmosphere. As warming in the Arctic continues, soils will increasingly thaw and release carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane, at significantly increased rates. Levels of atmospheric methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas, have been increasing for the past two years, and it is suggested that the increase comes from warming arctic tundra.

In a first-of-its kind assessment incorporating the fate of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica into global sea level projections, the WWF report concludes that sea- levels will very likely rise by more than one meter by 2100 -- more than twice the amount given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 assessment that had excluded the contribution of ice sheets from their projection. The associated flooding of coastal regions will affect more than a quarter of the world’s population.


“This report shows that it is urgently necessary to rein in greenhouse gas emissions while we still can,” Sommerkorn said. “If we allow the Arctic to get too warm, it is doubtful whether we will be able to keep these feedbacks under control.

WWF has joined with other NGOs to produce a model climate treaty for Copenhagen that gives the world a blueprint for achieving the kind of emissions cuts needed to likely avoid arctic feedbacks.

“We need to listen now to these signals from the Arctic, and take the necessary action in Copenhagen this December to get a deal that quickly and effectively limits greenhouse gas emissions,” said James Leape, director general of WWF International.

In December 2009, the governments of 191 countries will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the final round of negotiations for a new global agreement on climate change. The first period of the current agreement, called the 'Kyoto Protocol', will end in three years, in December 2012. The negotiations in Copenhagen are supposed to approve a new legal framework for global climate action from 2013 onwards.

According to WWF, this framework must guarantee much deeper and more rapid emission cuts from industrialized countries, and financing to developing countries to enable them also to take climate action.

Environmental Journalism...

Five years ago I had the chance, given by the Romanian Center for Independent Journalism, to carry out the first environmental journalism course. Every one labeled it "exotic" at the time, as environmental journalism was merely a theoretical twist for the Romanian media in 2005. "Interesting stuff, man, but get back to the real world," friends used to tell me with a tap on my shoulder. In five years we shall see offsprings of journalism materials that will consider environmental risk and report on green business, I used to reply. Three years after, almost all media set up green coverage, environmental pages or eco-events. Now it's a hype!

This course sought to instill an environmental facet of reporting for young Romanian journalists. The core of the lectures consisted of the analysis of global and local environmental issues with the tools and instruments of the reporter. Key concepts such as media effects, media events or media salience have been molded on environmental aspects of today's social and political life, enhancing a journalists' bias on sustainable development and imposing the "language of risk".

Here is a "schemata" of the course. For a detailed syllabus please contact me via e-mail.

1. Environment and Journalism. This lecture sought to shed a light on the complex relationship between the media system in a country and the management of indicators describing uncertainty that environmental journalism requires.

2. Flow and Framing of Environmental Information. The cyanide pollution disaster from Baia Mare was an excellent illustration that helped students observe PR and communication strategies of the companies, institutions, ngo's and mass media involved, as well as the international implications of such an incident.

3. Environmentalists and Their Communication. This lecture focused on Dieter Rucht's brilliant analysis of Greenpeace and Earth First!'s organisation and communication. A short presentation of an environmental national active network, Legambiente in Italy, concluded the lecture.

4. Reporting with an Environmental Bias. Sustainable Development. Media: an important actor that takes part in environmental conflicts, a watchdog that has to always raise the question "how risky?".

5. Access to Environmental Information. This discussion was concentrated on a thorough analysis of the Aarhus Convention and its implementation in Romania. Questions of environmental law, public international law and transparency were also taken into consideration. The Bystroe Canal case mirrored the above mentioned theory.

6. Environmental Press and Environmental Reporting in the Mainstream Media. Students were presented a few tools of quantitative and qualitative media research methods. The media coverage of Dracula Park in 2002 has been a relevant case study in this respect (Raul Cazan - "Environmental Issues Covered in the Romanian Press - The Case of Dracula Parc", MA Thesis, CEU, 2002). Agenda setting, framing and objectivity were the notions that we followed.

From SuperAlp! to SuperCarpatica!

SuperAlp!2 consisted of a demonstrative crossing of the Alps using only sustainable means of transport: bike, train, bus, cableway, without forgetting the most eco-friendly and the natural way: walking. However, this project was more than just a journey across the Alps. The 2008 edition, put into practice by Marcella Morandini, wanted to make this crossing an occasion to discover the different existing networks, also at the local level, which contributed to the creation of a good future for the alpine nature and communities, in compliance with the principles of the Alpine Convention.

The Alpine Convention will support such sustainable projects in the Carpathian region. "If crossing the Alps, from Chambery in France via Switzerland and Austria, up to the Italian Dolomites, has been a project with an obvious success, you have my guarantee that, at least as a good practice and know-how this will be applied in the Carpathians probably next year," said the Secretary General of the Alpine Convention, Marco Onida.

"We are open to participate in such a project in the Carpathian mountains, and, inevitably, I suggest its name: SuperCarpatica!", added Onida. The aim was to discover and ask about the different networks, especially at the local level, to highlight the foundation for cooperation between alpine mountain communities. Moreover, the project was set to be an example of good practice which could be "exported" to other mountain areas rich in biodiversity and traditions such as Carpathians, concluded Onida.

Encouraging consumption of local products, presentation of eco-initiatives, in alpine towns or in tourist destinations, such as sustainable mass transport, generation of energy from biomass or protection of flora and fauna were the strengths of the project.

Messner. Man in the Clouds

Museum in the Clouds or Messner Mountain Museum is the highest expositional structure in the world, situated at 2181 metres altitude. One cannot access it but on mountain paths or on an old mountain road by a coach especially dedicated to the “ascension in the clouds”.
The great alpinist, activist and entrepreneur, Reinhold Messner, after a lifelong climbing on the 14 world’s 8000ers with no oxygen mask, is dedicating his energy to cultivating the image and culture of the mountain. He is voicing alpine communities in the Dolomites, is a promoter of sustainable tourism and founder of a museum structure with no precedent in the world.
At Firmiano Castle there is the “administrative” centre of his museums. At Juval the myths of the mountains are “hosted”, while in Ortles one can visit the museum of the ice worlds. In Brunico, the museum of the mountain peoples. On Monte Rite, the most shocking attraction – the museum of alpinism and of the rocks. As I was already contemplating the Carpathian variant of the SuperAlp, I wondered if his projects were worthy of being transposed in a Carpathian environment.
Then bigger questions came up. What is the culture of the mountain? How will we maintain
natural equilibria and life in the mountains? At the conclusion of the SuperAlp!2 – a project of the Alpine Convention, which consisted of sustainable crossing of the Alps from Chambery (France) to Belluno (Italy) with low carbon footprint means of transportation (hike, bike, train or bus) – the rough mountain man answered my questions with an “unusual kindness”, as some locals told me…

Are your projects exportable in the Carpathians?

Such museum related initiatives as well as support for the mountain peasants can be done in the Carpathians. However you must find someone to be willing of carrying out such job.
I for one cannot be that person simply because I do not have the power and the means to export my work all the way to the Carpathians in order to create from scratch such structures. I visited Bulgaria lately, the Balkan Mountains, and I noticed that poverty over there is way higher that it used to be in the South Tyrol or in the Dolomites 50 years back. I am aware that the economic differences with regards to the mountainous areas between Bulgaria and Romania are rather minimal.
There is though the possibility to grow a large sustainable tourism initiative, but you will be in need of financial means and a lot of energy. A museum structure such this one is just a drop of water in the sea. Nonetheless it is a structure that functions, it is beautiful and I am convinced that these kinds of museums will be more successful in the next two decades.

But why a museum in the clouds?
I am glad that you, the SuperAlp! guys ended your itinerary here in Monte Rite because you have the occasion to enjoy this Mountain Museum, a project that speculates already existing construction structures. The walls of the museum belong to an old fort from WWI, and there is nothing I have changed in terms of construction. Even the road that led you here is almost a century old. However, I gave this old structure content and I filled it with culture. The idea of a mountain museum in the Alps does not presuppose building of new structures because they might have a negative impact on the environment. A mountaineer can see that in the objects exhibited in the museum lies a great culture and history. There are old paintings that reveal alpine ascensions’ histories, ancient objects that belong to the alpinists, documents, photographs and geological data that speak the history of the alpine rocks.
The exhibitions comprise, in each room of the fort, one decade in the history of ascensions on the alpine peaks.

Isn’t it a perfect infrastructure needed for such a project? Whom these initiatives belong to?

The most important thing lies in the common will and determination of those who live or are linked with the mountain area; strength of a single man, whoever he may be, does not suffice. Even hiking freaks and nature lovers eventually need hotel rooms, good tourism structures, incentives to get people to walk in the mountains. We need open roads with a sufficient breadth as to allow access of a bus, but with restricted access for automobiles. Problems such as these are solvable if there is local will and initiative. This is the essential thing: locals and only locals must be involved in development structures of sustainable tourism development in order to sell their products to mountaineers that respect the mountain. I do believe that it is wrong and unproductive to blame politicians. Local is the key word, each must acknowledge her own responsibility.

Have you ever been in the Carpathians?

Yes, I have, unfortunately not in Romania, but in Tatra. Carpathians are much different than the Alps, it is a long range and well forested, much more than here. It is a big mountain chain and I am sure that extraordinary things can be done over there. However, you must carry them out!

Why does the alpine tourism suffer?

I see now that a lack of structures which can promote sustainable tourism in the last four decades made us enter in competition with the global tourism, and I am referring to the whole European continent. Today we compete with Africa, China, South America, with the whole globe. Nowadays, a three week trip to Nepal costs less than a little holiday trip from Frankfurt to Cortina d’Ampezzo with the same duration. Investments in alpine areas are essential as long as they aim at sustainable mountain tourism or mountain agriculture, if they are made in the spirit of cleanliness and respect for those places. Moreover, we should not be depending on any government. For the case here, the regional Government in Venice or the Italian Government in Rome are way too remote, they have no clue about what the mountain is. Same in Brussels, 90% of the politicians come from the plains and they simply cannot be well informed on what is happening in the mountains. Governments impose taxes or start over some programmes, nothing more. But what should governments do? How can mountain inhabitants be supported? Governments must allow people to live in the mountains as genuinely as they can. Tourism must be an incentive for people of the mountain, which, by their own old means of production maintain sustainability in the area. They must work in order to survive, to eat and drink, to make it through tough winters. The main condition is to be left alone.
The success of sustainable tourism in South Tyrol lies primarily in the fact that people realized that peasants, mountain producers, cannot be successful unless they become owners of small hotels. We are talking about very small hotels with few guest rooms where they serve typical products directly on the plate. And everything with no state aid whatsoever. Peasants are smarter than politicians; they understood that before the government.

Are you involved in such agro-tourism projects?

I own two small guesthouses which I leased to good administrators – otherwise I would not be here for the interview – that function very well in our south Tyrolean system. What I want most is to have the opportunity to work freely with no cap-laws coming from Bolzano, Rome or Brussels, which are almost imprisoning us. In the mountains the rules are pretty tight anyway. In mountain households there is no need of state aid nor state taxes. The model is valid since the Middle Ages. What I produce is enough for me and my family, the surplus will be sold to those who come in my “Agritour”. I do not sell a single bottle of wine on the market because the competition simply kills me. If a peasant sells his litre of milk to a dairy company at a certain price, this price will be quadrupled on the table of the city consumer. Thus, by producing and consuming everything in your own household, naturally – with respect to all hygiene norms, the peasant exits politics and the market, becomes his own master. If one has not got enough funds, household can unite in cooperatives of 20-30 entrepreneurial families that manage their selling points. All the time, however, they must keep a hawk’s eye on attracting tourists and on avoiding commercial companies that “chase” their products to re-sell them, thus decreasing quality. Cheese, produced and consumed in one household, is unique and has a way greater value and quality than labeled merchandise which is sold in the city.

In the end, why are you so preoccupied with sustainable mountain tourism?

I give a great deal of importance to the mountains ; mountains per se are not that important, but I add value by the things I do and I hope many others will do the same here and elsewhere.

Fourteen years now, I no longer climb the highest peaks of the world, I only practice some moderate alpinism – it is no longer the scope of my life, however I completely dedicated myself to promoting and deeply knowing the Alps, the Dolomites.

I am for the idea of creating a type of natural parks dedicated to those who truly love mountains and feel the urge to spend their holidays in the alpine areas. Mountain peasants have always climbed towards 2000 metres altitude to get their construction stones or wood for the winter.

There is thus a possibility to live in the mountains if we use what local knowledge and culture offers. We must turn to good account the alpine zones and forget the naïve idea we can bring back the wilderness in the mountains – in the Alps, at least. This is no longer possible.

But it is possible to show respect for the majesty of high zones and do not touch that, which in the past was not touched because it did not offer oil or wood. Up there, there was a place of those who wanted to get closer to the sun. Walking in the mountains does not mean roaming around, climbing and enjoying picturesque views. It is literature, art and philosophy. I want to give this culture’s substratum to the wanderer that comes from afar.


Translated from Italian

Third Industrial Revolution in Bucharest

Jeremy Rifkin held a killer conference on his Third Industrial Revolution in Bucharest just before the European Climate Change Citizens' Agora. Had a nice conversation with him, me and my buddy, Mihai Stoica, about '68, even got an autograph on my 68 Magnum Photoalbum. Rifkin was leading at the time the March on the Pentagon and recognized Marc Riboud's famous shot of a hippie 'planting' flowers on the National Guard soldiers' rifles (see photo above). It was the cornerstone image of the peace movement. But let's stick to environmental issues.

Raul:Let’s talk about European reality and surpass a little the European Dream. I just came back from Brussels, there was the Green Week conference series and listened to a presentation held by Anders Wijkman. He is also approaching your holistic way of thinking, and, more importantly, he was also supported by Dimas. He mentioned the pressure on ecosystems and this would be more important than emissions and emissions trading. On the other hand Dimas talked about sustainable consumption and production, wich Europe kind of lacks now. It’s not such a rosy situation…

Jeremy Rifkin:It’s not, dreams is what you’d like to be, it’s what you want to be, but the good news is that at least if you begin thinking what you want to be, than you got to do it. It’s a gap between dreaming and making it happen.

R: What about the terms, how can we get there?

JR: I think that that’s why I was that tough about nuclear and coal because I think you got huge potential here, you got to move quickly with your renewables you got enough hydro here to do a lot, you got sun, wind, you got biomass and forestry waste, you got everything you need.
What Romania has to do is to get together the civil society and the business sector, the younger generation has to embrace the Third Revolution.
Romania has got 21 milion people, it’s a big elephant. Start moving the damn country.

R: Carbon trading, ETS. Linking ETS with the American trading scheme…

JR: let me say this about the carbon trading fact. I think that the carbon trading plan is part of the sollution, but if anyone thinks it’s the solution is kidding himself. It’s buying us time, it sets some standards. You know what the real value of carbon trading is? It’s a learning credit, what it actually allows people to do is understand that everytime I do something I affect the rainforest or other locations. I realise that what I do affects someone else. It’s actually a learning thing. People actually start to integrate into their mind that everything I do has an impact on everyone else. That’s actually the biggest benefit it has, to show that we are responsible for everyone else. In terms of the actual carbon trading it’s a small part of what we need to to, what we really need to do, we’ve got to get a tax on carbon, on feed grain, on meat production- The second major cause on global warming. No one talks about it, No 1 is buildings, No 3 is transportation, and No 2 is meat production. No one mentions that, no government leader.
39% of the grains in the world is feed grain for animals, a third of the land space and that’s a killer. We should talk about tax on feed grain, on meat production. So we are taxing cars and petrol, now we oughtta be taxing meat.

R: Green Hydrogen Initiative?

JR: It was set out when Romano Prodi was president, I set down with him and I said you have to make a hydrogen programme to store renewables. He put together two billion dollar programme wich is now moving to a joined technology initiative to the market, it will be 500 million Bruxelles and 7 billion private this year. The programme has a 26 technology platform of R&D engines for industry. I brought in business leaders in December to meet with president Barosso, and after that meeting I was encouraged by the commission to star having a conversation with the other platforms. What we did, we located 13 platforms of the 26 technology platforms that would lay the basis for a Third Industrial revolution, like road, rail, sustainable chemistry, computing, hydrogen, construction, etc. and we asked their chair persons would they join the technology working platform group and they all did. We had two long meetings and we are now creating a NASA airbus model with all these industry platforms that are now interfacing to create a world map. It’s very exciting.

R: GMO and biofuels?

JR: Big mistake. The opposition on GM food started in my office in 1982, we brought the first lawsuit that stopped the first release of a GMO in the environment. We’ve been fighting Monsanto for years. The GMO makes no sense. But there is a new generation of weed search called marker assisted selection, which I m in favour of. It’s a cutting edge of genomic revolution. What you don’t know is that the majority of companies like Monsanto do most of their research now on marker assisted selection. Why? Because GMO doesn’t work. It doesn’t give you much. Moreover, MAS shall not be patented, it’s gonna be like file sharing on the internet or local virtual networks.