I'm sure its the same concept as researchers I've spoken to. If you want to deal with others (individuals or institutions ) bound by CBD rules, you must follow them too. UCBG would not have much success in international relations if they were caught commercializing plants given by other institutions that do follow the CBD. Personally I think the CBD is useless and forces institutions to work against their own goals of conservation. Commercialization of 99% of the plants we are talking about would mean nothing to the countries of origin. The money involved is so insignificant, and very cost prohibitive to produce and market from the countries of origin. They aren't losing out on anything. Tim Chapman > Paul, > > Are you referring to the CBD? Since the U.S. has not ratified this treaty, > how does UCBG justify following its provisions as policy? What advantages > are there for your garden for CBD compliance, and do you think these > advantages might also apply to private collectors and nurseries? > > Perhaps more importantly, how can any garden honor a pledge to never freely > share restricted live material in the long run, intentionally or otherwise? > >