EU seed soveriegnty insanity

[sam_uk]

More:


Today, the European Commission actually presented its proposal for the first time and, lo and behold, there were some last-minute additions introduced that do take care of some of the concerns voiced.
In particular, paragraph 2 of the last proposal draft covers derogations, including:
“Derogation on niche market plant reproductive material
In addition, proportionate and sustainable rules for small scale activities concerning plant reproductive material, which is adapted to local conditions, and made available on the market in small quantities, should be established. Such varieties should be exempted from the requirements on registration and making available on the market. This material is defined as niche market plant reproductive material. The exemption should concern e.g. farmer-breeders or gardener-breeders whether being professional operators or not. However, some basic rules on labelling and traceability of the material should be laid down. In order to prevent an abuse of the exemption the material should only be made available on the market in a defined size of packages.”
This is further clarified in Article 2:
This Regulation shall not apply to plant reproductive material:
(a) intended solely for testing or scientific purposes;
(b) intended solely for breeding purposes;
(c) intended solely for, and maintained by, gene banks, organisations and networks of conservation of genetic resources, or persons belonging to those organisations or networks;
(d) exchanged in kind between persons other than professional operators.”
While this is good news for seed banks and swaps between private persons, I am not sure how this wording sees the swapping of seeds between local farmers – they are clearly “professional operators”, but would they qualify as pursuing “on-farm conservation” of genetic resources?
There is more information on derogations in Article 36:
“1. Article 14(1) [requiring mandatory registration] shall not apply to plant reproductive material where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) it is made available on the market in small quantities by persons other than
professional operators, or by professional operators employing no more than
ten persons and whose annual turnover or balance sheet total does not exceed
EUR 2 million;
(b) it is labelled with the indication ‘niche market material’.”
So there is a certain leeway for small-scale producers, but clearly the EU is trying to find a balance on where producer protection stops and regulatory oversight is necessary.
The new draft also addresses old traditional varieties, as follows:
“Old traditional varieties. Concerning old varieties, such as conservation varieties (including landraces), or so called ‘amateur varieties’, less stringent requirements should continue to be laid down in view of promoting their on farm conservation and use as currently regulated under the Directives 2008/62/EC and 2009/145/EC. The varieties will continue to be registered, however, on the basis of an ‘officially recognised description’ which shall be recognised – but not produced – by the competent authorities.” (p.
In addition, the press release stresses that the use of seeds in private gardens, and the private sale of seeds in small quantities, will not fall under the scope of the regulation, that old traditional varieties and heterogenous material will only be subject to “light registration rules” (and are exempt from the testing requirements), and that micro-enterprises are generally exempt from registration fees.
So, were all concerns addressed? It depends; some of the actual adjustments are only delegated to the Commission, which is then tasked to “adopt delegated acts accordingly”, but these specifics will be decided behind closed doors. In addition, the changes don’t reach as far as was demanded by civil society (e.g., that no registration of plant varieties that don’t have intellectual property rights attached to them is mandatory). However, this draft already looks much better than what was discussed previously – it seems civil society has been (to a certain extent) heard! Now, the legislative debate moves to the European Parliament and the Council – the reform is intended to become law only in 2016.
Were you following the seed diversity debate? Do you think it was much ado about nothing, or that only the protest movement ensured that the current draft is as reasonable as it is?

http://foodpolicyforthought.wordpress.c ... #more-3870

[adam2]

If applied correctly and sensibly, these new regulations should not be unduly onerous, though still still needless IMHO.
The problem is that our civil service tend to "gold plate" or "over interprate" EU regulations and look for ways to complicate matters rather than doing the minimum required by the EU.
It would seem that the EU rules require a relatively simple statement as to what sort of seed is being sold. TPTB in the UK will probably insist on an expensive report from either a consultant, or from a QAUNGO set up for the purpose.

[sam_uk]

I have updated this page again with some of the latest: http://open-seeds.org/bad-seed-law/

Realseeds.co.uk say:

Following a huge outcry and intense lobbying from consumer groups, small-scale farmers, genebanks, and even some member-state governements, a few last-minute alterations were made, which while not perfect, have reduced the impact quite a lot.

The key last minute concessions that were made – and this really was only due to public pressure, because they were not in the draft just 3 days previously – are as follows:

Home gardeners are now permitted to save and swap unapproved seed without breaking the law.
Individuals & small organisations can grow and supply/sell unapproved vegetable seed - as long as they have less than 10 employees.
Seedbanks can grow unapproved seed without breaking the law.
There could be easier (in an unspecified way) rules for large producers of seeds suitable for organic agriculture etc, in some (unspecified) future legislation – maybe.
But the rest of the law is still overly restrictive, and in the long run will make it much harder for people to get hold of good seeds they want to grow at home. There are also clauses that mean the above concessions could be removed in the future without coming back to the Parliament for a vote. Full Article



The full text of the proposed law is here



Patrick on Bifurcated carrots writes:

Some very important changes appeared in the legislation draft in the last minute. This is only because of pressure people all around the world put on the EU Commission. Signatures on petitions, emails to commissioners and the like. This was no gift, it came because we demanded it and worked hard for it. We must keep up the pressure. There are other problems with the legislation, and there is the possibility it will be amended later in the legislative process.

Fundamentally it’s bad legislation. It starts by declaring all seeds used in agriculture illegal, as well as most materials used in forestry management in Europe. It does not criminalize seeds, it makes them illegal. It then goes on to detail procedures for testing, certifying and registering this material, setting very strict rules on the people and companies that sell this material, then makes a few small but important exemptions. This is the wrong way to approach these things. Seeds should not be illegal — this does not make sense Full Article



Arche Noah have conducted an analysis of the law, some of their key findings include:

The primary goal of the S&PM regulation is raising the productivity and intensifying an industrialised, export-oriented agriculture. Against this backdrop, the intended exceptions for niche markets and old varieties do not amount to more than a window dressing and are not suited to stop the loss of biological diversity.”

A main demand of many actors from all over Europe, the removal of obligatory official registration of varieties, has not been met. This would, however, be the most direct and most un-bureaucratic way of promoting biodiversity,

The regulation’s exceptions for allowing diversity, when analysed in detail turn out to have problems: Historical, geographical and quantitative restrictions for old and rare varieties imply barriers for diversity and its potential.

The commission wants to secure its right to decree the concrete requirements on packaging, labelling and even the way of marketing through a delegating act at any given moment. This could de facto render this niche so complicated and bureaucratic that it would not offer a real space for concerned enterprises.

For decades, disproportionately strict rules have been governing the EU seed market. Now the moment has come to fundamentally put these biodiversity-hostile provisions into question.

The so-called DUS-test on distinctiveness, uniformity and stability presses cultivated plants into a technical-juridical corset. Whilst high plant uniformity is strongly questionable from an ecological point of view.

This proposal urgently needs to be revised. The EU-commission’s only reaction to international pressure from civil society were cosmetic changes, but the fundamental critique of the proposal has not been considered. Read the full Press release (PDF)



Foodpolicyforthought also have some useful analysis of the amended proposed law. Full Article



We now have an opportunity to lobby for a law that actually improves biodiversity

ARCHE NOAH and 240 other organisations from 40 European countries have initiated the “Open Letter”, addressing the decision makers in Brussels.

Please sign it (In English) here

and encourage organisations you are involved with to sign it too

[biffvernon]

Well done, Sam.

[Blue Peter]

Have you missed a link at the end there, Sam?


Peter.

[emordnilap]

Have you missed a link at the end there, Sam?


Peter.

All the links are in the original article.

[Blue Peter]

Cheers,


Peter.