If I could, I'll perhaps answer some of your questions directly. But first, with regard to biofuels, we could probably have a whole afternoon in discussion on the policy requirements and the timing and the reaction from the marketplace in terms of meeting the commitments that Canada has put forward for four years' time for standards for renewable fuels and transport fuels.
But let me come back to the four questions you originally posed. You asked about the transition of new feed varieties, how long it would be. I think you're aware of the proposal for a general purpose wheat class, which basically preserves kernel visual distinguishability for the two main wheat classes--Canada western red spring wheat and Canadian western amber durum--but allows the requirements for visual distinction of the other classes of wheat to not be a registration criteria for varieties. That's in the works. I believe CGC is looking to implement that in about a year's time.
There are varieties that are on the shelf that may very quickly be registered that have different characteristics, and of course new ones will be developed, given this policy. That's the timeframe. You asked how long. That's a rough estimate.
You asked what the impact of our recommendation on government funding for research was. In general terms the research budget is approximately $10 million, which rests with the Canadian Grain Commission. We recommended over a seven- to ten-year time period an increase of four times, or fourfold that amount, to take it to $40 million. We also recommended that this money be given not only to the Grain Commission but also to establish a separate fund that would provide funding for universities and other private research groups, so it's collaborative, so it's not just money for the Grain Commission.
We're targeting research overall, and this is research primarily relating to quality and quantity control for grains. The budget for research in agriculture and specifically for grains is considerable, so we're talking about that piece.
On the third point, ensuring that reform of the agency doesn't cause concern with customers and our reputation, this was something we considered very seriously. For example, on the inspection of grain for export, although we recommend that the inspection of grain on inward movement into export terminals may be optional, at the request of shippers, we recommended that the outward inspection and weighing continue to be mandatory. It's for that very reason. We felt very strongly that there's an expectation of third-party unbiased documentation of quality and quantity assurance by customers. It's a competitive advantage in a reputation that Canada has that we feel strongly needs to be protected and preserved. That was the basic rationale for our recommending that the outward inspection continue to be mandatory.
Lastly, just very quickly--I won't take too much time--on your question about other countries, there are other countries that have agencies similar to the Canadian Grain Commission. Of course, the aspects in each country are considerably different, but take, for example, numerical grading, which is a part of our framework in Canada. The U.S., France, Australia, the Ukraine--you can go down the list--all those countries have numerical grading for grain that is essentially established by governmental regulation and standards.
There are a number of different agencies. I won't take too much time there, but we can go into some more.