| ||
 Proposed new (and very bad) EU seed lawJump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| General Forums -> Worldwatch | Message format |
Agric |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 214  | On 6th May 2013 a new Regulation to consolidate existing Directives is scheduled to be brought before the weekly meeting of EU Commissioners for a vote. It is a horrid piece of work, even worse than the nasty bits of Directives it seeks to replace, even more pro big agribusiness and anti diversity and freedom of choice. A couple of links: http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw.html http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/ http://seedpolicy.arche-noah.at/en/home Please add any other good sources of info you find. Meanwhile, here are my various thoughts so far on what I've read... =================================================== I got the link to a copy of the legislation from here: http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw.html It's at the very end of that page, direct link: http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/PDF/EU_Comm_Draft_on_plant_reprodut... It's parent website is useful, too: http://www.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/ I was unable to find a copy on the EU website but that's not surprising! Quotes and page numbers below refer to the PDF above. ====================================================== From executive summary: 3.1. Part I – Scope and definitions [page 2] "In order to adapt to the needs of producers and the requirements of flexibility, the Regulation continues not to apply to plant reproductive material intended for testing and scientific purposes and intended for breeding purposes. In addition, it should not apply to material intended to or maintained in gene banks, and networks of conservation of genetic resources or organisations associated with gene banks as well as material exchanged in kinds between two persons." [page 5] "Concerning old varieties, such as conservation varieties (landraces, populations) or amateur varieties, less stringent requirements will be laid down. 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. For that description no DUS testing is obligatory. It shall describe the specific characteristics of the plants and parts of plants which are representative for the variety concerned and make the variety identifiable, including the region of origin. This description can be based on an old official description of the variety, description produced at the time by a scientific, academic body or organisation. The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use. The current quantitative restrictions are abolished. The users are informed about the material by a label indicating that this variety is identified by an officially recognised description and the region of origin." ========= my comments ================================ The above sounds, in part, moderately reassuring. Though the first selected paragraph is too restrictive and needs to change, it is accurately reflected in the Regulation. The second paragraph is close to being reasonable; however, it is not accurately carried through into the Regulation which excessively limits the definition of 'old varieties' and places inappropriate constraints such as geographically limiting their production. ================================================== From the proposed Regulation: [page 7] "Article 2 Scope This Regulation shall not apply to plant reproductive material: (a) intended solely for testing or scientific purposes; (b) intended solely for selection purposes; or (c) intended solely for, and maintained in, gene banks and networks of conservation of genetic resources associated with gene banks; (d) exchanged in kind between persons other than operators." [page 11] "Article 10 Definitions For the purposes of this Part, the following definitions shall apply: (1) 'variety' means a plant reproductive material within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which fulfils all of the following requirements: (a) it is defined by the expression of the characteristics that results from a given genotype or combination of genotypes; (b) it is distinguished from any other plant grouping by the expression of at least one of the said characteristics; and (c) it is considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged; (2) 'official description' means a description produced by a competent authority, covering the characteristics of a variety concerning its distinctiveness, uniformity and stability; (3) 'officially recognised description' means a description of a variety placed on the market before the entry into force of this Regulation, which describes the specific characteristics, including the region of origin, of the plants that are representative of the variety concerned, and make that variety identifiable, and which is recognised by a competent authority for fulfilling the following criteria: (a) at the time when material of that variety was placed on the market, it had been found by a competent authority in compliance with the relevant rules of the respective Member State or third country, or had been recognised by the competent authority as produced by a scientific, academic or technical body or organisation; or (b) the accuracy of its content is supported by the results of previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use." [page 18] "Article 25 Plant reproductive material belonging to registered varieties or clones 1. Plant reproductive material may be produced and placed on the market throughout the Union only from the date on which the variety, or, where applicable the clone, to which it belongs has been included in the national variety register referred to in Article 49 or in Part A of the Union variety register referred to in Article 50. This paragraph shall not apply to rootstocks, which do not fulfil the conditions of a variety. 2. Plant reproductive material belonging to varieties with officially recognised description only, shall only be produced in the region(s) of origin of that variety. 3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 143, setting out that particular genera or species may be produced and placed on the market without belonging to a variety registered pursuant to paragraph 1." ========= my comments ================================ In my opinion the logic of the proposed Regulation is fundamentally flawed. While its objective purports to be the protection of legitimate plant breeders' rights, its structure and drafting is indicative of an entirely different purpose: to restrict seed availability to large scale transnational agribusiness product. It should be rewritten with a more constructive and appropriate perspective. Note that the executive summary is not truly representative of the proposed Regulation, safeguards for 'old varieties' alluded to in the summary are not properly present in the proposed Regulation. If implemented as currently drafted it would: - decrease biodiversity of food crops grown by amateurs and small scale commercial growers, - reduce seed consumer choice, - infringe personal rights to grow and trade in heritage varieties, - eliminate the use and possibly the preservation of many heritage varieties, - potentially hinder response to climate change effects, - result in widespread flouting of the law, - be contested in and probably found invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union - as have certain existing Directives on this matter. My final comment above relates to a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 19 January 2012: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=1181... The opinion from paragraph 73 onwards is most relevent. Returning to the proposed Regulation... In principle the consolidation of the various existing Directives into a single Regulation is good. Unfortunately this proposed Regulation takes many of the existing bad aspects and makes them worse. Had DG SANCO intended primarily to protect legitimate plant breeders' rights they would have designed the Regulation to specifically and narrowly define that plant reproductive material (PRM) and formulate appropriate rules applying to such, and only such. PRM falling outwith that definition could then continue to be used as it has in the past with little restrictive regulation on its production, use, sale and exchange. It looks like this is a desperate attempt of DG SANCO to sneak through this malevolent legislation because they know they won't get agreement from the other directorates involved (DG AGRI and DG ENVI). ======================================================= Points: 1. If the regulation intends to protect plant breeders' rights (IPR - Intellectual Property Rights - for PRM - Plant Reproductive Material) it should be written to only apply to seeds etc which are subject to those rights, not to old or non-commercial varieties. 2. Because it is written from the perspective of seeds having a rights' owner it has to define exclusions for old varieties, these exclusions are too narrow, constraining and sometimes vague. 3. The regulation will almost certainly make it difficult and / or expensive to register, produce and trade in old / non-commercial varieties - possibly even by informal swapping. 4. The existing 12 Directives the new regulation intends to replace have already been found inadequate eg: "...it must be concluded that the disadvantages of the prohibition against the sale of seed of varieties that are not demonstrably distinct, stable and sufficiently uniform and, where appropriate, of satisfactory value for cultivation and use, established in Article 3(1) of the Vegetable Seed Directive, are disproportionate to its aims. Consequently, that provision is invalid.", and the proposed regulation does not properly correct these faults. 5. It requires all varieties to be registered else they may not be traded in any way. Probable effects: 1. Reduction of biodiversity of food crops grown by amateurs and small scale commercial growers. 2. Reduced seed consumer choice. 3. Infringement of personal and business rights to grow and trade in heritage varieties. 4. Possible elimination of the use and even preservation of many heritage varieties. 5. Potentially hindered response to climate change effects. 6. Widespread flouting of the law. 7. Legal dispute - existing Directives it seeks to replace have already been found invalid and manifestly inappropriate (in several ways) in a preliminary opinion by the Court of Justice of the European Union (January 2012), and the new regulation repeats those errors and compounds them. Questions (answers): 1. Someone has been growing an old, unregistered and possibly unique variety for 30 years, saving its seed, can this now be swapped with or without registration - and at what cost? (probably yes) 2. An amateur breeds a new variety, the seed companies don't want it or the amateur doesn't want to sell its rights to them, it is not registered. Can it be traded in any way? (no) 4. An old, widely used, variety isn't registered in time, perhaps due to no seed company currently selling it. Is it then illegal to produce or trade it? (yes, it seems) 5. A widely grown old variety, eg Sutherland Kale, whose seed is available from a very few suppliers but also saved and swapped by a fair few individuals. Who registers it (unclear), at what cost (could be low or zero, might be high), and does the seed have to be produced in Sutherland? (yes if not registered at high cost) 6. What happens if climate change turns Sutherland into a desert or an ice cap? (EU legislation would be a minor concern!) ======================================================== Say you'd had a great aunt Shona who lived by the sea in Brora all her life and grew a kale whose seeds she'd been given by her grandfather when she was 10 in 1930. She gave you a jar of the seed in 1990, it didn't do well on your clay soil in Inverness being better suited to her sandy patch in Brora where your sister now grows it. A fortuitous cross (in 1993) with your Ragged Jack kale did do well in your soil so you grew that new variant. Does the proposed regulation allow you, for both kales, to: - give away the seed to friends? - take it to a seed swap? - give or sell it to a crofter for use as a forage crop for his 20 sheep? - or to a local market gardener who just sells to local outlets? - provide it to a small seed supplier, for free or a small fee, for slightly wider distribution? I think the answer is no to the last 3 above but probably yes to the first two for the 'Brora kale' at least. What if you register the two varieties? Will you have to pay the high fees (currently over £1000 initially and over £200 annually thereafter)? I think yes, especially for your new 'Inverness kale'. If you did manage to register one or both as an 'officially recognised description' (the designation for old varieties) hence qualify for low or zero registration and annual costs the seed would have to be produced in a limited geographic area - whether that might be the Brora seaside, the Highlands, or Scotland would probably be for lawyers to decide. Why, I ask, should all this be so if the objective is to protect the rights of commercial plant breeders selling in bulk to industrial farmers? If your kales became wildly successful and all Europe wanted to grow them you would happily register and market them, or sell their rights to a company to do so. Until and unless that eventuality the small scale production, use and marketing of your seed harms no one and nothing - except the potential monopolisation of the EU seed industry by a handful of agribusiness behemoths which this proposed regulation appears to foster. Our plant varieties are a common heritage developed over centuries, they cannot become the sole property of a few multinational companies. ================================================ Email sent to UK's EU Commissioner catherine.ashton@ec.europa.eu 6th May Commissioners mtg: Please Oppose DG SANCO PRM Regulation Dear Baroness Ashton, DG SANCO are scheduled to bring forward a Regulation on Plant Reproductive Material (PRM) for approval at the 6th May Commissioners' Meeting (Executive Summary SWD(2013)163/1). I strongly urge you to vote against this Regulation; DG AGRI and DG ENVI, who've been involved with the proposed Regulation, are thought to be opposed. In my opinion the logic of the proposed Regulation is fundamentally flawed. While its objective purports to be the protection of legitimate plant breeders' rights, its structure and drafting is indicative of an entirely different purpose: to restrict PRM availability to large scale transnational agribusiness product. It should be rewritten with a more constructive and appropriate perspective. I am in favour of consolidating existing Directives on this matter into a new Regulation and I'm in favour of some of the stated purposes of the Regulation. However, the Regulation as currently proposed will likely do considerable long term harm. Note that the executive summary is not truly representative of the proposed Regulation, safeguards for 'old varieties' alluded to in the summary are not properly present nor sufficiently applicable in the proposed Regulation. If implemented as currently drafted it would: - decrease biodiversity of food crops grown by amateurs and small scale commercial growers, - reduce seed consumer choice, - infringe personal and business rights to grow and trade in heritage and non-commercial varieties, - potentially eliminate the use and possibly the preservation of heritage varieties, - potentially hinder response to climate change effects, - result in widespread flouting of the law, - be contested in and probably found invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union - as have certain existing Directives on this matter. My final comment above relates to a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 19 January 2012: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=1181... The opinion from paragraph 73 onwards is most relevent. Thank you in anticipation, Yours sincerely, John L. Church Director, Transition Black Isle ====================== SWD(2013)163/1 = executive summary document for mtg. (the above is not available online, I have requested it and the acknowledgement said I'd get a response within 15 days) ====================== Prices in euros for registration testing: 20 | Seed-propagated species, outdoor test | 1430 | 21 | Seed-propagated species, greenhouse test | 1790 | 22 | Vegetatively propagated species, outdoor test | 1970 | 23 | Vegetatively propagated species, greenhouse test | 1610 | | ||
| |||
| Anne Thomas |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 319 | BBC article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22395970 | ||
| |||
| Agric |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 214 | Hmmm, the BBC article was not strictly accurate to say (of me): "He said it could lead to a situation where it would be illegal for a person to grow vegetables of a strain handed down through their family in their garden." I think my comments were much more nuanced, see my kale example above. As expected the commissioners passed the draft regulation, the current state of play (which I've not had time to read yet) is here: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/review_eu... | ||
| |||
| Martin |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 275  | It sounds as if things maybe aren't so bad, exemptions for private individuals, small businesses and seed-exchange networks, see Garden Organics' news item on this, http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/news/news_topic.php?id=909&dm_i=4UO... | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |