The values of the plant genetic resources (PGR) described in the previous chapters are multiple and cannot be overstated. These biological resources and the heritage they represent are being dissected by science and technology, and by laws, both multilateral and national, and rights are being claimed over them at various levels and on different grounds, individually and collectively, privately and as public goods. The main argument in this contribution is that natural and cultural heritage, biological resources, and intellectual property are legal concepts that should be grounded deeply in a human rights perspective, in particular on economic, social and cultural rights. A legal perspective provides context to the complex innovation and appropriation strategies that are taking place, by industrially oriented life sciences and technologies, but also by small rural producers and their associations, by social movements, by public research institutions, and by municipalities, states and nation states. From seeds as public goods and heritage of mankind to registered plant varieties and patented genes, many things have changed over the last three decades in the regulation of PGR. For better or for worse, legal developments have taken place, and they have impact on the conservation, research, documentation, and use of biological and genetic resources. The more or less recent multilateral legal frameworks reviewed include two conventions on world heritage, a convention on biological diversity, a treaty on PGR for food and agriculture, a convention on industrial property, the intellectual property rights obligations of a multilateral trade agreement, and a union with a binding act on plant breeder's rights. In heritage, cultivated plants, plant breeder's rights and geographical indications, we provide a quantitative panorama for this region in which we consider all continental countries from Canada to Colombia in a comparative approach that provides a wider context that is useful in framing the issues at various levels. The fact that PGR are essential for the future of humankind is recognized by all. How to best

The Ethnic Studies Now! Santa Barbara Coalition (ESNSB) formed in December 2015 as a community-based, intergenerational collective with the goal of establishing an ethnic studies course as a high school graduation requirement in Santa Barbara, California. From the beginning, ESNSB understood that this work fit into a broader context of building democratic education and grassroots participation in our community. At the same time, ESNSB needed to work as a grassroots organization with the Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD) and the school board to achieve our immediate goal. Several significant questions arise from our organizing. While it matters that activists work with institutional stakeholders to implement new policies, what changes when grassroots organizers are part of the process? How do activists work with institutions while countering the institutions’ tendency to absorb or co-opt their efforts? How does a multigenerational organization, such as ESNSB, work to develop youth leadership as well as to create structures that offset the tendency of adults to take charge and to take over? One partial response is that ESNSB operated on a model of collective leadership. But what is collective leadership? How might it work in practice? What is the relationship between models of organizing and democratic education? By addressing questions such as these, this article seeks to illuminate aspects of grassroots organizing that can help to build social movements for (and beyond) ethnic studies.