Plant breeding collects, induces and rearranges genetic diversity followed by selection. Breeding may contribute to diversity in farmers’ fields or significantly reduce it. History has numerous examples of both. The diversity of many crops have gone through domestication, dispersal and modernization bottlenecks. Between these major decreasing processes, diversity has picked up through different evolutionary processes, and plant breeding affected by policies. Major negative effects of plant breeding on diversity have been recorded following the modernization bottleneck, but alternative breeding strategies have come up as well, both in the formal system and in the interphase between formal and farmers’ seed systems. Multiline breeding and participatory plant breeding are introduced as examples to also analyse effects of current developments in technology and policy. This paper intends to shed some light on the questions: how will current developments in technology and policy affect crop genetic diversity? Are we heading for a new bottleneck—either a molecular or a policy bottleneck, or a combination of both? Or could the future become more diverse? We look at the relationship between breeding, policies, and crop genetic diversity in farming systems with a birds-eye view. Notably because of current policy trends we warn for a new diversity bottleneck.

Seeds are a basic input for all crop production. Good seed is crucial for the global food and nutrition security, for rural development and farmers’ livelihoods and for all green value chains. What “good seed” is depends on individual farmer’s needs. The sustainable availability of seed and seed choice is thus an essential issue for every farmer. Farmers access seeds from multiple sources. Different seed systems have their strengths and vulnerabilities. With changing farming conditions around the world due to climate change, soil degradation and market demands, an analysis of possible disruptions and general future-proofing appears necessary. Such analysis also informs the kinds of support that different seed systems may need to be optimally resilient. Given the very limited studies on resilience of current seed systems, we performed a literature review on the opportunities and vulnerabilities of seed systems to identify possible resilience challenges. Seed system resilience in terms of future-proofing is closely linked with “seed security”, the secured access to preferred seeds by farmers. Such resilience depends on the functioning of each of the formal and farmers’ seed systems and how these two systems complement each other, particularly when one falters. In this paper, we describe the major characteristics of seed systems, analyze their strength and vulnerabilities, and describe support functions toward future-proofing them. Both the farmers’ and the formal seed systems are increasingly facing varying forms and degrees of sustainability challenges. These require various types of support. Farmers’ seed systems may find it hard to respond to radically changing conditions without support. Commercial formal seed systems are less vulnerable, as they generally are better equipped to respond to the (changing) needs of their customers. Commercial formal seed systems, however, only serve those farmers that are able and willing to pay for quality seeds. This immediately indicates a significant limitation. A common feature of both formal and farmers’ systems is their dependence on the continuous flow and capacity to use a diversity of plant genetic resources. In conclusion, no single seed system can be considered totally resilient and thus future-proof without specific external support.

Technological developments in plant breeding, notably cisgenesis and gene editing, require a rethinking of biotechnology policies. In addition to legal debates about the definition of genetic modification in the Cartagena Protocol and at national and supra-national levels, and debates about the safety of the resulting products for mankind and environment, discussions are ongoing in society concerning ethical and societal questions. In this paper, we analyse the main ethical issues that need to be taken into account when evaluating contemporary plant breeding techniques. After a brief description of the state of the art in plant breeding, we discuss these main ethical issues. We take Consequentialist, Deontological and Virtue ethics as bases of our analysis. This results in a generally positive approach to gene editing, but also highlights several concerns, predominantly used by particular groups in society. This leads to a moral incentive toward transparency and options for operationalizing consumer choice.

Seed is an essential start of any crop production. Seed, as both botanical seed and vegetive planting materials, is thus a very important component of agricultural livelihoods in food, ornamental, and industrial value chains, of local and global food security, and a determinant of sustainability. All farmers need good seed, irrespective of the farming system and markets that they supply. Seed qualities, in terms of germination/vigour, health, and genetic content, are a concern of all farmers. Farmers have various ways to access seeds. With time, the diversity of farmers’ and formal seed systems have become increasingly refined and complex. Given the importance of seed, not just for farmers but for society at large, seeds have become subject to an increasing number of regulations that pursue different policy objectives. Some have been intentionally developed to regulate seed systems themselves, while others impact them as a side effect. Various components of different policies, regulations and outcomes, their interactions and apparent dilemmas and inconsistencies are discussed to highlight the significance of seeds and to illustrate the importance for policymakers and regulators to carefully phrase rules and be sensitive toward the possible unintended effects of their actions. This particularly relates to seed marketing regulations, intellectual property and farmers’ rights, and biodiversity and biosafety rules. A general conclusion is that rules and regulations need to respond to evolving technical and socio-economic developments. Since seed systems differ widely and operate side by side, regulating a particular system may negatively impact others. The challenge for policymakers is to create policies and regulations that support both formal and farmers’ seed systems where they are most effective while minimalising negative consequences for breeding, selection, and seed production in either system. Several suggestions and recommendations for how to do so are provided in this special issue.

The Open Source Seed Initiative was initiated in 2012. Following concerns about the concentration in the seed sector and the rise of patenting, the initiative is “dedicated to maintaining fair and open access to plant genetic resources worldwide in order to ensure the availability of germplasm to farmers, gardeners, breeders, and communities of this and future generations.” Inspired by the debate on the anti-commons and the open source software movement, the initiative wants to create a viral system to “free” genetic resources: the use of “freed” genetic resources is made conditional to any materials derived from them being made available under the same “open source” conditions. This would be achieved under a “pledge” (in the USA) or a license contract (in Germany). The objective of this paper is to analyze whether these open source seed initiatives may deliver their goals. We compare the concept with the open innovation character of the plant breeder’s rights system, exemplified by the breeder’s exemption, and the major other open source initiative in the sector, BiOS. We also present other ways to limit negative impact of the patent system on plant breeding. We conclude that national sovereign rights on genetic resources may challenge the open source goals and that the German initiative may contribute to legal complexities in the seed sector. The open source movement may even contribute to the trend that openness (through the breeder’s exemption) is challenged despite the intentions to the contrary. In fact, the initiatives not only free the genetic resource but also treat seeds as a common good. We question the sustainability of the business models for that approach and thus the societal benefits that can be expected from plant breeding, which may illustrate the tragedy of the commons.